Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission meeting this evening, April 1st, 2025. Thank you all for being here tonight. For those of you who are here for the first time, welcome, and we appreciate your attendance at our meeting this evening. The normal format that we follow is we start out with the Pledge of Allegiance, have a moment of silence, and then get into the agenda. And we follow that with various presentations, recognizing individuals, events, organizations that are important to our community. And a member of the Commission will be making such presentations tonight. So if I can begin tonight's meeting by inviting Michael Cunningham from the Carter Park Trip Program to please come to the podium and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you all please stand? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Great. Thank you so much. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. I'd like to announce retirements for the month of April. These are employees that have served the city of Fort Lauderdale for many, many years. First, I'd like to recognize Joe Georgiana, who has been an HVAC technician for Parks and Recreation. He's been with us for 20 years. So thank you so much, Joe. And Donna Veriscoe, executive assistant to the city manager, been in the city manager's office, I know, 29 years. Donna, thank you so much. The things you've seen in 29 years. Okay. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Vice Mayor Glassman? Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Here. Commissioner Sorensen? Here. Mayor Trent Ellis? Here. We have a couple of agenda announcements. There will be a walk-on resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a grant application to the Florida Inland Navigation District. This is regarding a seawall replacement and also a walk-on resolution reaffirming resolution 24-280 regarding the preferred alternative for the new river crossing. We have a couple of agenda revisions. We have a couple of agenda revisions. We have a couple of agenda revisions. R2, exhibit 2. The resolution was revised to include additional language at the request of the Florida Inland Navigation District. And then we have PH2, a commission agenda memo was revised to update some of the background information shown on page 1. Okay. So with those modifications, do I hear a motion to... Mayor, could I ask for a modification on the agenda? Yeah. Please. Thank you. I'm just looking at the agenda now. We have a neighborhood presentation, NP1, which is some youngsters, including, well, several folks from Virginia Schumann-Yong. Is there any way we could move up NP1 to maybe right after the consent purchase? Sure. Would that be okay? Okay. Sounds fine to me. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. So with that, do I hear a motion to approve the approval of the minutes and the agenda as amended? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trenton? Yes. And so we have a few presentations. First, I'd like to recognize Bloomberg Philanthropy Silver What Works City Certification Announcement. Sounds like a lot. So let me just explain what that is. So tonight, we are proud to announce that Fort Lauderdale has been awarded the Bloomberg Philanthropy's Silver What Works City Certification by Results for America. This achievement acknowledges our city's exceptional use of data to inform policy, allocate resources, and enhance resident services. It reflects our strong leadership and dedication to data-driven decision-making, positioning Fort Lauderdale as a top data-driven local government. So, Laura, you want to explain what this is all about? Absolutely. Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioners. The mayor was accepted to a program with Bloomberg and Harvard last summer, and he and the city manager... He was accepted to Harvard. Yeah, and his chief of staff went and participated in a program. And with that program, he and Greg brought forth some initiatives that they asked staff to pursue. One of them was the public safety initiative that we did over the summer where we spent some time innovating with our community. And the second one was the What Works City's data initiative that you asked us to participate in. So, this was actually the third shot we took at it. So, over the last five years, we've three times applied for the designation and really had to dig in. It's a big lift and a big initiative, and it's something we need to be really proud of as a city. It means that throughout the city, not just through the Office of Management and Budget, but throughout the city, we're making decisions based on data. We're tracking data. We're involving the community and sharing out data. So, it's something that, as a city commission, as a community, we can be really proud of. And, you know, thank you for bringing that back to us. So, first of all, congratulations on all the great work you did, all of you. Wow, is that the trophy we got? Yeah, it's... Wow. It's substantial. Size matters. Okay, so... So, congratulations. And does anyone else from your team want to say anything? I think she's just huffing and puffing, holding that. Let me just say the weight of the award is a good representation of the work that went into it. You know, two of the areas that we're especially proud of that we scored higher than other cities is in our budgeting. We had a perfect score for how we'd use data to drive our budget allocations, as well as performance management, which is really important to how we improve services throughout the city. So, definitely want to highlight those as important contributions to our city, and we're excited to keep carrying the work forward. Great. Congratulations, and thank you for your good work. It's a thing to be careful. Thank you. Our next presentation, I'd like to invite Vice Mayor Glassman to present a proclamation regarding Heal the Planet Day here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Thank you, Mayor, and I would like to invite up Heal the Planet CEO, Vanessa Seltzer, and Board Member Ron Bilboa. Please, come on down. A lot of people. Well, that's more than two people. Okay. Nice to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. I am very pleased and proud to read this proclamation from the Office of the Mayor, City of Fort Lauderdale, in recognition of Heal the Planet Day, April 2025. Whereas, Earth Day, observed annually on April 22nd, serves as a global reminder of our collective responsibility to protect and preserve the natural resources that sustain us. And whereas, Heal the Planet, a dedicated nonprofit organization, empowers individuals, particularly children, to gain awareness of the impact their daily choices have on them personally and the environment as a whole, demonstrating that even small actions can yield significant positive change. And whereas, through its programs, including sustainable energy education, seed, young seeds in the park, and regular beach cleanups, Heal the Planet has successfully educated thousands of children and families on the principles of sustainability, conservation, and mindful living, all emphasizing the importance of taking action. And whereas, Heal the Planet is celebrating the 10th anniversary of Heal the Planet Day, a signature event since 2015, which over the last 10 years has fostered active public participation through educational workshops, interactive exhibits, and local initiatives. And whereas, on April 13th, at Esplanade Park, Heal the Planet Day will offer residents and visitors opportunities to participate in hands-on learning, connect with nature, and discover practical ways to adopt eco-friendly lifestyles. And whereas, Heal the Planet Day, and whereas, Heal the Planet Day, and whereas, Heal the Planet Day commends Heal the Planet for sharing its passion for protecting and preserving the environment, by celebrating Heal the Planet Day, the city solidifies its commitment to environmental stewardship and encourages all neighbors to take action. Now, therefore, we, as city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim, April 13th, 2025, as Heal the Planet Day, in the city of Fort Lauderdale, and dated this, the first day of April, 2025, and signed by our mayor, the Honorable Dean J. Rentalis. Congratulations. Who would like to say a few words? Who would like to say a few words? Okay. Thank you. Hello, everybody. Well, I am very grateful for this opportunity, and like our mission says, we all have to take action. We all need to be aware that everything that we do matters, and Heal the Planet Day is the perfect day to show that to the community. So I invite you to join us. It's a Sunday, and we'll be here educating the community. Thank you again for this opportunity. Thank you, Ron. Thank you, Vanessa. Thank you. I'm going to get a photo here. Isn't it Earth Day this month, in April? Yes, April 3rd. I remember, and I'm dating myself here, the first Earth Day was celebrated when I was in high school. And a notice went out for students to assemble in a room to talk about ways we can recognize it and promote it. And I think six people showed up, and everyone thought that Earth Day and all this stuff was for hippies and was not to be taken seriously. And clearly, that has changed. And we want to thank you and everybody that's connected with the organization for all the efforts that you make in highlighting the importance of protecting the Earth and protecting our resources. So thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. Mayor, I have a question. Were you wearing your Earth shoes that day? I didn't have those then. Oh, wow. They had clogs. They had clogs back then. Okay, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, it's your turn. She'll be presenting a proclamation regarding National Child Abuse Prevention Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Yes. And I'd like, if I could please ask Nick Hessing, the Children's Services Council of Broward County Government Affairs Manager, to please join. Oh, hello, Nick. To please join the commissioner at the podium. Good evening to everyone. Thank you, Mr. Smith. The impact is felt not only by the child and their family, but by the entire community. It is our collective responsibility to protect, uplift, and support every child, ensuring that they have the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential. And whereas research demonstrates that parents and caregivers with strong support systems and access to essential resources are more resilient and better equipped to provide safe, nourishing homes for their children. And whereas the Children's Services Council of Broward County invests in programs that strengthen families, promote positive parenting, and reduce the risk and impact of abuse, neglect, and trauma by keeping families safely together and connected to resources. And whereas Broward Aware is a countywide campaign led by Children's Services Council and its partners to bring together neighbors, organizations, and advocates to raise awareness of child abuse prevention through education, community engagement, and the promotion of education, community engagement, and the promotion of healthy child development. And whereas the National Child Abuse Prevention Month provides an important opportunity to encourage all Floridians to take part in activities that strengthens families and communities, creating environments where children can grow and thrive. Whereas when a child abuse prevention efforts are supported through strong partnership among families, schools, services, service providers, and law enforcement, faith-based groups, businesses, and local leaders, we create a culture of care and accountability that protect children and empower their families. Now, therefore, we, as the City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim April 2025 as the National Child Abuse Prevention Month in the City of Fort Lauderdale and call upon all the residents to stand together in support of children and families to speak out and take a meaningful action to ensure that every child grows up safe and valued and loved. Dated this day, dated this day, dated this day, dated this day, dated this day, the first day of April 2025, signed by our Mayor, Dean Trantellis. Nick, would you like to share a few words? Thank you to Commissioner Pittman, to Mayor Trantellis, to the entire commission for recognizing April's Child Abuse Prevention Month. This is my third year accepting this proclamation from the City of Fort Lauderdale and from cities across the county. This is a particularly exciting year for the City of Fort Lauderdale. This year, we're beginning investments, actually squarely in your district, Commissioner Pittman, drawing down federal funding from the Promise Neighborhood Grant for the next two years, leveraging Community Foundation, Little Help Never Hurts, and our ABCD initiative. So I look forward to talking to you more about it. But for today, thank you again for recognizing this important month. And thank you for all the work you do on behalf of children in Broward County. Great. Thank you, Commissioner. I now would like to invite Commissioner Sorensen to present a proclamation regarding Water Conservation Month here in the City of Fort Lauderdale. And I'd also like to invite Public Works Senior Project Manager Steve Hilberg. Steve, are you here? There you are. Come on up, Steve. Don't be shy. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it. Steve, thanks for being here. I want to share with you the proclamation and recognition of Water Conservation Month, April 2025. Whereas water is a basic and essential need of every living creature. And whereas the state of Florida, water management districts, Broward County, and the city of Fort Lauderdale are working together to increase awareness about the importance of water conservation. And whereas the state of Florida has designated April, typically a dry month, when water demands are most acute as Water Conservation Month to educate Floridians about how they can help save Florida's precious water resources. And whereas approximately 40 million gallons of water are used daily in Fort Lauderdale. And whereas choosing Energy Star labeled appliances and water sense fixtures in homes, yards, and businesses can help save water and protect the environment. And whereas the average family can save 13,000 gallons of water and $140 in water costs per year by replacing old inefficient toilets with WaterSense labeled models that may be eligible for $125 rebate through Conservation Pays program. And whereas every business industry, school and resident can champion water saving practices, ensuring a thriving economy and vibrant community for generations to come. Now, therefore, we as city commissioners, the city of Fort Lauderdale hereby proclaim April 2025 as Water Conservation Month in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And encourage every resident to join in the year-round commitment to safeguarding our water resources, ensuring a sustainable future for Fort Lauderdale. Dated this day, the 1st of April, 2025, your mayor, Dean J. Trantellis. Thank you. This is the 27th year that this has been Water Conservation Month. This time, the focus is on irrigation. And they claim that you can save 40% of your irrigation usage by going to naturescapes and using Florida-friendly landscaping materials. They're more adapted to this climate, and they don't need as much irrigation water. So I certainly encourage the use of that. And this is a good thing because our water is precious. And right now, it is the driest month, but it's also a drought. So please continue to conserve water. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Well, before we continue with the meeting, I would just like to take a moment of personal privilege. I don't know if that's part of Robert's Rules of Order or not, but I would like to invite our acting city manager, Susan Grant, to join me at the podium. Well, this isn't for you. No, but... So tonight, I would like to take a moment on behalf of myself and the members of the commission to formally thank you for all the great work that you've done, for the many, many years that you've been with our city, and for taking on the responsibility of acting as our city manager in the interim until we were able to choose a city manager, which is Raquel Williams. Thank you, thank you, Raquel, who will start tomorrow. And, but this is, we present this because, you know, the hearts of Fort Lauderdale are truly encased in this clock. And while it just merely says Bulova on there, in reality, you know, so many people are affected by so much of what you do day in and day out, and many people really don't realize that. And the decisions that you've made and will continue to make in assisting the commission, assisting the new city manager, as well as trying to carry forth the policies that the commission sets, you have set a high bar for many of us to try to follow. And with that in mind, this is just a small token so that you can remember that you did serve as our city manager and that we did appreciate you and that there's no time like tomorrow to get things done. And anyway, this is something that we'd like to present to you as thanks for everything you've done for us over the years. Thank you so much. I'd also like to invite all the senior management staff to join me and join us for this picture, if they could all please. Oh, in the front? Okay. Really? Well, actually, we got it from her and we got a discount. I see we have a lot of chiefs. P to the front. Congratulations, Alan. Mayor, can I just say a couple words? Go ahead. Thanks. And a lot of us had a chance to thank Susan earlier, but Susan, oh, there you go, more goodies. I just want to thank you, Susan, for your hard work, your dedication, your responsiveness, your focus on the neighbors in our city, and your positive attitude and how we can get things done, how we can work together collaboratively. And you've just been fantastic, and I look forward to seeing more of that continued as you stay on. So thank you. And thank you to your family, your husband, and everyone, because I know it's a shared sacrifice that you make. A city manager's job is not easy. And I just appreciate all the time and effort you put into it and the taking of phone calls and e-mails and all that good stuff. So thank you, Susan. You're welcome. And as I said, it's been a joy. So thank you for the opportunity. I also want to take a moment and just recognize something that many people already know, but one of our senior staff members, Al Battle, has taken a position as assistant city manager in the city of Clearwater. So we want to wish you all the best in your new venture. Thank you. So Al, I followed you down here from Jacksonville 20 years ago, so let me know how you like Clearwater. I just want you to know, Al, we have better beaches here, but that's okay. Okay, now we have a meeting to get to. Anyway, thank you all. I appreciate all of everyone's cooperation here tonight, all of our guests. Thank you for being here, and we appreciate all the great work you do on behalf of our community. Now, the next part of our meeting is what's called the consent agenda. And what happens here is that the commission is asked to vote on all these items at once. And unless any one of them should pull an item to be discussed and voted on separately. If an item for which you have signed up has not been pulled, you are welcome to speak on that item before we vote on it. In the meantime, I will ask the commissioners, starting with Commissioner Herbst, are there any items you'd like to pull from the consent agenda? CM 11. CM 11, did you say? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? None. Vice Mayor? None. And Commissioner Sorensen? None. Okay. So we have people who have signed up for CM 1, CM 4, and CM 10. Those in support of the item, do you need to speak on any of it? I'm sorry? Are those in support of the item? Okay. Do you need to speak on it? Oh, you want to speak on it? Okay. So we'll start with CM 1, Mark Dickerman. I have no idea what CM 1 is. Susan, would you- Well, then why are you wasting our time? Susan, would you come here, please? On behalf of the citizens of Fort Lauderdale, I know the commission gave you a beautiful gift, but upon- As a citizen of Fort Lauderdale, I want to thank you for everything you've done. It's hard to kill those, I know. Even I- Good. Yeah. I'm so excited. So- Well, the secret is Donna Verasco, who is retiring, is my chief plant-taker-care-of person, so hopefully I won't kill it without Donna here. Yeah, but I wanted to thank you on behalf of the citizens for stepping up and- Thank you. Doing a great job. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Quick picture. Oh, good mic. Carla, did you want to say something, too? Please come on up. So you can go ahead with CM 1. I'm fine. It's okay. Are you taping all this? Are you on TikTok? Is this your content? We're on Instagram right now. Oh, Instagram. Okay. Okay. Hello, my fans. Your fans, yeah. Ma'am, that's another website. Okay. Thank you. So you made me nervous and I messed up. All right. Good evening, Mayor Trentellis, Vice Mayor Glassman, Commissioner Hurst, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, and Commissioner Storrison. My name is Carla Roundtree, and I reside in District 2. I am here tonight to speak on several agenda items, but the first is CM 1, 2025 Oceans of Soul and Jazz Festival, December 5th and 6th. I want to make sure I understand the process for this festival to be held on the beach. What are the factors that will determine if a second approval of this event can proceed? If the first approval passes, how long will it be for the second reading to be scheduled? I am looking forward to let my family and friends all over the world know that the city of Fort Lauderdale is a diverse and equality city and welcomes everyone to come and participate. My hope is the commission will approve CM 1, 2025 Oceans of Soul and Jazz Festival, December 5th and 6th. Thank you. I don't know the answer to that question, but I think the commission has committed itself to ensuring the success of that event. But for those details, I would invite you to speak with your district commissioner. And what district do you live in? Two. And very quickly, Carl, let me just help. Yes, this is an approved event on the beach. This agenda item is simply changing the dates from September to December. Okay. That's all this is. That's okay. All approved. All ready to go. Tell all your friends. All right. I'll let them know. Thank you so much, y'all. You're very welcome. You might want to stay there for a second because you signed up for a lot of different items. Ellen Bogdanoff, you just signed up for questions, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. CM 10, you had a few things to say on CM 10. Yes. Okay. So CM 10 is providing additional meal services for all districts. Food insecurity is a growing problem in Fort Lauderdale. And there are some residents who are not sure if they can provide food for their children. Unfortunately, providing an afternoon snack may be the only thing a child may have until they return to school the next day. With cuts to food stamps and low availability for pantries to help, it is essential that the city provide an afternoon snack to all aftercare programs. I hope the city will commit to this. Okay. Carla, this is actually for 450 children, and it's not just afternoon snacks, but it's also dinner in addition to the snacks. Oh, that's wonderful. It is wonderful. That's wonderful. Thank you so much. Okay. Commissioner Herbst had pulled CM 11. Commissioner Herbst. I just pulled that to vote no until we get everything resolved with the police station. I'll be voting no on any change orders. Thank you. Okay. Carla, you want to speak on this? Okay. On CM 11 that he's pulled? Yep. All right. So the first question, is this the same company that was awarded this contract during the construction where there were many flaws in design? Two, what was the process for selecting AECOM as a consultant for this project? How many were considered? Three, how are the subconsultants selected? Are there any oversight? Four, will there be oversight on AECOM selection for the waterproofing consultants? Five, if the consultant requests additional services before granting these funds, will there be any oversight? And lastly, during each task being submitted for funds, will there be any oversight? All right. Those are all very good questions and important questions. We're not going to be able to take the time to answer them, but I know the vice mayor will be happy to sit with you and go over all those questions with you, okay? Okay. Because there are good answers to each and every one of them. Yes. Okay. All righty? Thank you, Carla. All right. So let's, since Commissioner Herbst pulled this item, would someone like to move CM 11? Moved. Second. All right. If you're moved and seconded, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And CM 11 is now approved. Carla, you also wanted to speak on CR 4, which is the SHIP funds. So on CR 4, on the eligibility for elderly and special needs, it states that elderly is at 62. So I am 59, and the government has listed me as disabled. Will I be given priority for rental affordable housing or for home ownership? Sorry. I don't know the answer to that question. Again, these are great questions, and I always invite our neighbors to contact their city commissioner for their district to be able to answer these questions because I think they're important to be answered. I don't know if we have the time, really, to respond to each and every one of your questions, but we're very happy to make sure that you have answers to them. And, Vice Mayor? And, actually, if we could maybe, if Avis can get together with Carla, or Erica, if we can get Carla's information for Avis Wilkinson, we can get those answers for you. Thank you so much. You guys have a great day. You too. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on any of the consent agenda items? There being none, do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda items? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And all the consent agenda items are now approved, and if you're here on those, we thank you for your coming tonight. You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. We were asked by Commissioner Sorensen to move up the neighbor presentation. NP-1, Sabrina Sauerwald, would like to talk to us about food dyes. Is Sabrina here? Yeah. Thanks, Mayor. There she is. Did you bring a team with you? She's back. Okay. Come on up. She said yes. Hello, City Commission, and hello, Mayor Trent Ellis. Thank you for giving me the privilege to be here today. My name is Sabrina Sauerwald. This is Louise Sorensen and Conrad Becker, and I am here to talk about artificial food coloring. I am nine years old, and I am in third grade at Virginia Schumann Young Elementary School. You are all probably wondering, well, what's wrong with food dye? Well, number one, in high amounts, it can be harmful to people's health. The highest amount you should be eating of red 40 is 3.2 milligrams per pound. Exact. Number two, most companies don't tell you how much dye is in the food. They'll put what's in the food, but not how much. Number three, red 40 can cause in children inflammatory bowel disease, immune system tumors, hyperactivity, anxiety, and many more negative side effects. So, in conclusion, I would ask if the City Commission can please stop paying for companies that have foods with dye and them with city dollars. Thank you. Do any of your friends want to add to your comments? One other topic they'd like to share. So, they have two topics. That's all right, Mayor. This is a separate topic. Okay. We'll be indulgent tonight. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Go ahead. Speak right up. I want to thank the City Commission and the Mayor for hearing my presentation. My name is Gianna Maria Sauerwald. I am seven years old and a first grader at Virginia Schumann Young Elementary School. I lived my whole life in Victoria Park, and I want to talk with you all about Holiday Park. Holiday Park is like my backyard, living in the city that is the only open space I have to play. I learned to bike at Holiday Park. I play soccer and other sports on the fields there. Holiday Park is one of my favorite spaces in all of Fort Lauderdale. For too long, many parts of it are unusable to me and my friends. I am seven years old, and I have never been able to play on the playground there. It makes me sad when I go by the playground and see other kids in that area with nothing to do. I wish that me and my friends could meet there and play. My dad plays pickleball, and I want to learn to play pickleball too, but the pickleball courts are always full. I never see any little kids like me on the courts. My mom runs over at Holiday Park, and they used to have a long running trail. She says it has been shortened and disconnected over the years. I know the city has many important things to do, but this is really important to me. Holiday Park is the heart of downtown Fort Lauderdale, and if there's anything you can do to make it stronger, faster, we would all really appreciate it. Okay, thank you. If I could just help you with that, because I agree with you 100%. First of all, thank you all for being here and speaking so eloquently. As the district commissioner who represents Holiday Park, I want you to know that we have voiced our concerns about how slow the projects are moving forward in that park, as in others that we have already approved, actually going back to 2019. The children's playground area is going to be spectacular. We will make sure that our director of parks and recreation gets in touch with you and gives you that entire schedule so you know when that's all coming. And we're also going to add nine pickleball courts to the six that are already there. And let's work on a project where we can dedicate some time to people under 70, and they can play some pickleball, and that'll be great. Well, I'm just thinking of myself, Mayor. I'm sorry, because I am a pickleball player, and I'm sorry. I'm just thinking out loud. But we're going to work on all of those things. You guys are amazing. Your school's amazing. Thank you so much for being here. And just hang out up here for a moment, Mayor. If I could just ask the city manager a couple questions on the first topic, if that's all right. Sure. Susan, what might be our options around what foods we, for example, would be in our vending machines or so forth? You're the concern about food diets. So any feedback there of how we can kind of evaluate? Just not off the top of my head. The vending machines are kind of tough, and, you know, there are things like this kind of thing that probably does. But let us spend some time looking at it and seeing if there are ways that we can have an impact on that. Okay. Well, keeping in mind that the regulatory power doesn't rest with the city. It's the state and the federal government. So we can certainly encourage the people that represent us in the state, House, and Congress to try to pass laws that protect individuals from the poisonous aspects of food dyes. We hear more and more about this all the time. So thank you for bringing it to our attention. And we really appreciate your, you know, continuing the fight to keep America safe and healthy. So thank you. Yes, you raised your hand. Come on up. I just thank all my friends that have helped me get this far to be here today. Sure. Yes, go ahead. Who do you want to thank? Most people in my class and Commissioner Ben Sorensen for letting me be here. And my sister and family that have been supporting me. Great. Great. Thank you all. And, Susan, maybe we could take a look at the law that Virginia, I think, just passed. Virginia did just, I think, ban food dyes. There was one state that just did. I think it was Virginia. So maybe we could take a look at that. Kids, we're going to take a look at Virginia's law that just banned food dyes. It's okay. I didn't know that. This week. Okay. Oh, great. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate the young folks here really picking up the mantle and running with it. Okay. Moving on to motions. This is a motion approving of an agreement for the design bill services for the George T. Lohmeyer wastewater treatment plant odor control improvements. Someone like to move the item? Moved. Do I hear a second? Moved and seconded. Hopefully we can get the smell away. Yes. Any questions? There being none, please call. Wait a minute. Oh, I'm sorry. I do have some questions. Regarding this process, needing to know moving forward in the process with change orders regarding this, because we've been seeing a lot of change orders coming forth with projects that are handled by this particular company, and I would like to know how we're going to handle that moving forward. Absolutely. We were talking to representatives of the company earlier, and I don't know if they want to come up, but we did ask them about owner or what vendor designated change orders, and they've made a commitment, and here comes Matt. There you go. You can speak on the back. Is this a guaranteed maximum price? Evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Thanks for the time. What Susan's referring to is a conversation we had earlier today. Matt Sacco representing AECOM, that AECOM would commit to no AECOM-initiated change orders on this project. Okay. I guess that answers you. In other words, if we ask for a change order, that's one thing. If they ask for a change order, they're committing that there will be no change orders from their end. Okay. All right. We're going to hold you to that, Matt. You know where to find me. Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yep. Thank you for that, Matt. I know you and I chatted about this earlier today with the same concern, so I appreciate that commitment on behalf of your client, AECOM. My only other comments with this is this is not directed towards AECOM, but really more towards the process. I'm always very distressed when I see a contract of this size and scope with only one bidder, so I've had a lot of conversations with staff, and I normally would have strongly argued in favor of putting this out to bid. This project went through four amendments, four addenda during the process, and typically we would go back out to bid when we get to that point. We didn't at this time at the urging of our prior public works staff, and I'm disappointed that that happened, so I would just like to say to staff, when we have this many addenda with a procurement item, especially when we're talking $20 million, we need to stop, pause, and go back out to bid. We should have had more responses. In this market, there are certainly a lot of folks that want to do work, and I think if they were not so confused about what it was the city was asking for, we would have had a more robust response. So let's stick to our guns. Let's make sure that if there's confusion about a bid, we either get that corrected very quickly or we pull it and go back and fix it because clearly it was not ready for prime time when it went out on the street. So I'm not trying to criticize anybody in this process. This is not meant to beat anybody up and certainly not intended to have a negative aspersion towards the winning bidder. I just don't like the way the process worked itself out. I don't think we were served well as a city by this, and I think we can do better. So thank you. Okay. Any other questions or comments? It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. M1 is now approved. M2. This is an appeal of a decision of the Chief Procurement Officer's denial of a protest submitted by Blue Line Solutions, LLC, on the recommendation to award requests for proposals regarding the Automated School Zone Speed Detection Camera Program by Red Speed Florida, LLC. Who would like to? And I'm inviting Glenn Marcos to come up and start the process. Glenn, what have you got us into? Yeah. Let me go ahead and press the button here. Mayor, commissioners, good evening. Glenn Marcos, the Chief Procurement Officer. I'm going to present for you the facts and timeline regarding this protest. This is the Chief Procurement Officer's denial of Blue Line Solutions protest to award the Automated School Zone Speed Detection Camera Program to Red Speed. So that everyone understands, the city staff has recommended that Red Speed Florida, LLC, be the company that we choose to install and operate the Automated School Zone Speed Detection Cameras here in Fort Lauderdale. And this selection recommendation is being appealed by Blue Line Solutions, who was the other vendor who sought the award. Is that correct? That is correct, man. Okay. So take it from there. All right. Thank you so much. Before we get started, what's on the display here we can't see in front of us. If we can have it in front of us, please. There's nothing there yet. Yeah. So if you can go on to the next slide. Thank you. All right. So on this slide, on August 16, 2024, Blue Line Solutions LLC protested the specifications to RFP number 332, Automated School Zone Speed Detection Camera System. At that time, the nature of their protest, it was to protest Section 2.45, which is the SOC 2 of the RFP. And they claimed that that requirement by the city and the RFP was unduly restrictive, overstated the city's needs, and limited competition. So the contractor, they basically said, should provide, or actually the RFP stated, the contractor should provide a current SSA 18 SOC 2 Type 1 report with their proposal. Can you explain what that is? Sure. The SOC 2 report is basically, it's an audit, Mayor, and it's basically to ensure that the necessary securities control and the personal data is being protected by the software that's being proposed. Got it. So at that time, Blue Line claimed that the city should delete the SOC 2 Type 1 or SOC 3 reports as a requirement and allow for the NLETS audit. At that time, the process required for us to get the city's information technology department to review Blue Line's claim. So their conclusion, the IT department's conclusion, stated that NLETS audit did not meet the rigorous standards and comprehensive scope required by an SOC or SOC 2 report. Now, the difference between a SOC 2 report and an NLETS is as follows. The SOC 2 provides a thorough evaluation of an organization's overall system, controls, encompassing a broad range of security measures. The NLET audit, even though designated for law enforcement agencies, it addresses a more limited set of framework and compliance requirements. Next slide. I'm sorry. I got it. Got the control. All right. So on August 21st, 2024, I denied Blue Line's protest on the specifications based on the information technology conclusion as to why the NLET was not appropriate for this solicitation. On August 30th, 2024, the Procurement Services Division issued Addendum No. 3 to the RFP. That addendum was to extend the deadline from August 6, 2024 to September 6, 2024. It also changed the SOC 2 timeframe submission requirement, allowing for negotiations to occur with the highest-ranked, responsive, and responsible firm, continued upon receipt of a current SSAE SOC 2 Type 1 report within 60 days after proposal due date. Blue Line submitted and admitted in its RFP response that it would not have the SOC 2 Type 1 report until March 2025, and the SOC 2 Type 2 report sometime into a later part of 2025 as shown on this slide. And you will see under step number three, right below it, you'll see 100%. And at that time, they made the claim in representation to the city that at that time, the SOC 2 report will be made available. And then the SOC 3 will be made available subsequently sometime later on this year, in 2025. On August 16th, 2024, despite its previous representation that Blue Line will not meet the November 5th, 2024 deadline to submit the SOC 2 report until March or later of 2025, they later claimed in its protest to award to Red Speed that it had the SOC 2 report all along on this date. However, Blue Line never submitted the SOC 2 report to the Procurement Services Division. Now, notice three weeks passes and still no report was submitted by Blue Line. On November 5th, 2024, the due date for proposals to submit their SOC 2 Type 1 report for city's review and acceptance, Blue Line still went ahead and failed to submit the report. So despite the three weeks and now November 5th being that due date, they still did not submit the SOC 2 Type 1 report. On November 13th, 2024, the Evaluation Committee heard presentations from the shortlisted firms. Procurement staff erroneously did request for Blue Line right after that shortlist meetings to submit the SOC 2 Type 1 report by November 15th after the shortlist presentations and ranking. Blue Line on November 13th, excuse me, did submit the SOC 2 on this particular day right after the EC met and provided its rankings and recommendations. Moving forward to January 16th, 2025, the Notice of Intent to Award was posted on Procurement's website. That protest period ran from January 16th, 2025, through January 24th, 2025. There was a weekend in between. And then on January 21st, 2025, we did receive the protest to award to Red Speed from Blue Line. At that time, I conferred with the city's attorney's office and we denied the protest based on the facts stated herein. On February 3rd, we did receive a Notice of Appeal and request for the matter to be heard before you. They requested for the matter not to be heard during the week of March 3rd due to the undersigned counsel's pre-scheduled vacation. So in conclusion, this is what we've concluded. While the Evaluation Committee ranked Blue Line as the highest-ranked, responsive, and responsible firm, it was contingent upon complying with the SOC 2 submission requirements. The SOC 2 requirement deadline date was November 5th, not November 13th. Only an addendum can change the solicitation requirements for all proposers to ensure transparency and fairness amongst competitors. An erroneous act of a procurement staff member can unidiotally change the RFP requirements. Now, a minor irregularity as claimed by Blue Line, as others might not have competed because of the SOC 2 deadline requirement, is a competitive advantage for them over their competitors. The solicitation never mentioned the SOC 2 requirement to be a matter of responsibility as they're going to claim in their protests. So it can't be considered up to the time of award as they're suggesting. Their RFP language, the RFP language does not offer flexibility as they're claiming in their protests for the SOC 2 submission requirement. Now, the protester also cites to a policy that pertains to an invitation to bid a language and not request for proposal in its presentation. So they're kind of confounding the issue. Protester can't dispute the facts cited herein. And there's no violation of procurement law, ordinance, policy, or procedure that took place here. And therefore, this procurement has been conducted in accordance with the city's procurement ordinance. Therefore, it is requested for the city commission to deny Blue Line appeal of the chief procurement officer's decision to deny the protests. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay. A couple questions. Is the only impediment for Blue Line to have succeeded in this process is the fact that they submitted, they wanted to wait until, was it November 13th, to submit their SOC report? And we said it was November 5th. Was that the only deficiency in their application submission? Mayor, yes. As a matter of fact, the RFP did require for 60 days after the proposal due date to submit that. They had every opportunity to submit that. Even when they claimed that they had it back then, they failed to submit it. And so, but to directly answer your question, the answer is yes. So, in effect, except, have they since submitted it, by the way? They have. They have. Okay. So, in effect, they, you, you, your team chose, chose them, chose Blue Line as being the superior vendor, but for the SOC 2 report. That is correct. The evaluation committee heard the presentations from shortlisted firms, and they did rank Blue Line Solutions LLC as the number one ranked firm, but continued upon, and that was on the record repeatedly during the EC meeting, continued upon the submission of the SOC 2 report. At that time, what we didn't realize is that that timeline or deadline passed and went, and we never received it until we asked for it. So, just looking at efficiencies and benefits to the community, do you feel that, at this point in time, do you think that Blue Line would be able to provide a better service than Red Speed? Mayor, unfortunately, that's not a decision of the chief procurement officer. That decision comes from the evaluation committee members. That member, the members entailed members from the police department, and so I think they're better equipped to answer that question. Is there someone here who can respond to that question? Anyone here from the police department? And, Glenn, we do have the ranking sheet as part of the item, as part of M3. So, if you wanted to look at Exhibit 2 in M3, you'd be able to see the rankings on the various criteria. Chief Schultz, do you understand my question? I do. Okay, so, all things being equal at this point, all right, who's going to provide a better service to the city of Fort Lauderdale, Red Speed or Blue Line? So, in all transparency, Mayor, I was not on the selection committee. The members of my department that were on that committee are not present tonight. There were other members on the committee that are not police department members, so I don't know if they are here or not. But, my preliminary knowledge of all companies are that they are all equally qualified to provide services. All right, so, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I thought you were part of the review committee, okay? No problem. So, you know, really, we just need to get to the bottom line here. And my only goal, personally, you know, I'm only speaking for myself, my only goal here is to provide the best service for the least amount of money for the people of Fort Lauderdale. You know, this shouldn't be so complicated. You know, we're just trying to make sure that kids who are going to school with their parents who take them to school sometimes are respecting the speed of the law around the schools during the beginning of school and the end of school. And we're just trying to make Fort Lauderdale a safe place to be. It's never been known as being, you know, Vision Zero has been a goal for so many years. And we're trying to, you know, achieve that goal, and we want to do it through the best process available. And is that, is Red Speed going to provide that to us, or is Blue Line going to provide that to us? And if the only impediment to Blue Line's selection was a delayed submission of the SOC report, I have concerns just over a technicality that I think we need to address because, honestly, I really want the best system in place. So is there anyone here who's on the selection committee that you know of that would be able to assist you in giving us that evaluation? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. My question, Mayor. Yes, ma'am. The ranking sheet that's given here, could he give us a definition for it? Could we walk through that? What exhibit is that? They're telling us it's on M3, exhibit number two. Exhibit M3? Yes. Yes, it's connected to M3. Okay. Exhibit. That's the award, and, yeah, it's the, each criteria. So experience, methodology, the proposed system, and proposed revenue percentage. And that was standard across the board. Okay, so we're looking at the criteria, and we're seeing total final score shows, let's see, total final score doesn't even show blue line or red speed as being the highest. Oh, the lower is better. Yeah, the lower is better. So you have three points. The lower is better. All right, so red speed got 9.25, and blue line got 3.0. Significant difference between the two, in which you identify blue line solutions as being the superior, far superior, to any of the other vendors who submitted a proposal. Am I reading that correctly? That is correct. All right. Does anyone have any other comments or questions with regard to this? I do. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I'm also looking at a lot of rankings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but originally we had about seven vendors respond, correct? Roughly around seven. That's right. These are seven. Yeah, seven vendors. So, Mayor and my colleagues, here's my issue with this whole thing. When I read the cam and when I read the scoring sheets and when I see all the comments, I'm just not happy with the process. I mean, and again, I don't want to disparage anyone's work on this, but when I read sentences that talk about our own cities mistakenly advising of certain information, it just creates an issue for me. I personally think that this entire issue should be rebid. This, to me, is not rocket science. I am concerned over this technicality that knocked someone out that scored so much better in the selection process. I think that we can go out. This is about a year old now already, right? So what's a few more months? We've never had this program. I think that it's really important that we verify everyone's performance, that we talk and we see what other municipalities, other governmental entities are experiencing. I've been reading a lot of information on this, you know, all over the place. But I just think that we need to make it cleaner for the city. I think it just needs to be a little bit more transparent. I think we need to get to the bottom of it. I think we need to make sure that we're picking a vendor that gives us the best opportunity for not just a safe school zone, but also to reduce the issues that we find in those school zones, and at the same time, at the best price. So, Mayor, I think that this should not even be decided tonight. I am in favor of going back to the drawing board on this and doing a total rebid on this issue. All right. There are a few people who have asked to speak tonight, so before we get to your point, why don't we let these few people speak, and then we'll make a decision. I'll call your names, the three names at once, Mark Stempler, followed by Matt Sacco, followed by Joe Goldstein. Mr. Stempler? Hello. Mark Stempler, on behalf of Red Speed, Blue Line filed the protest. It might make more sense for them to present their protest grounds first. Okay. So, we'll talk. Matt, do you want to speak? Matt Sacco, representing Blue Line, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Thank you. I was going to get up here and kind of walk through the scoring, but you already did that, so I'll cede some of that time back. I just wanted to remind you, based on that scoring, Blue Line is the clearly superior vendor in this response to this solicitation. They are also 40% cheaper than the second-ranked vendor. We would very much like to be awarded the contract tonight, but due to our consideration for the city and the process and the city's want to get the best vendor through a very clean process, we would also be willing to compete again if you decided tonight to rebid. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Matt, when you say 40% cheaper, define that with some numbers. Who does that – how does that 40%? Sure. So, the – and the client can explain it a little bit better, but in the financial structure of this program, Commissioner, the vendor gets a certain dollar figure for each ticket. In Blue Line's case, they offered $15 per ticket that they would get from the city, whereas the second-ranked vendor offered, I believe, $21. The proposals aren't in the backup, I don't think, so I can't confirm that on the other side, but I know that ours was $15, and we did rank first on price. Okay. Mark Hutchinson, followed by Joe Goldstein. Yeah, I know, but you're – I'm putting the Blue Line people first and then – because they're the ones that have asked for the protests, and I will eventually get there. Relax. Good evening. Mark Hutchinson, founder and CEO of Blue Line Solutions. I appreciate you taking up this matter this evening. I stand with Matt in saying we want the process to be the best for the city. If the council so chooses to throw it out and rebid, we're happy with that. I know you'll be happy with that. I mean, we truly do want what's best for the city, and, you know, my background is in law enforcement. My first fatality was a 10-year-old, and I've carried that with me through all my life, and that is why I do what I do today, and that is use technology to make sure that that doesn't happen again. And we would like the opportunity to do that in Fort Lauderdale. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Goldstein. Good evening. Joe Goldstein from Shuts and Bowen. I'm half of Blue Line Solutions, and I'm going to disagree with my client. You should grant our protest and then award us this contract tonight. I'm going to give you the reasons why. I never want to say anything disparaging about another vendor, but Sabrina, when she walked out here, she mentioned something about the red food dye, red speed dye, so I just wanted something to look into maybe. So there's really three reasons why the protest should be granted. One, we were timely. Two, this is a matter of responsibility, and you're allowed to provide information any time up to the time of award. And then three, at worst, it's a technicality and it's a minor regularity. Why were we timely was the addendum. It didn't say November 5th. It said 60 days. Other places in your solicitation where it said business days or working days, it actually said that. Here it just said – it said days, so it should have been – So there was no date certain. There was no date certain, exactly. Your city attorney disagrees with me. It's a matter of law, but that's besides the point. Point number two as to either the interpretation of the solicitation or that it's a matter of responsibility, the fact was that the SOC 2 is a matter of having that approved audit. It was not something that went into the rankings or the evaluations. There were four criteria, and none of those looked at to the merits of your SOC 2. You either have the SOC 2 or you don't have the SOC 2. It's not a matter of qualitative nature. And I'll point out regarding the rankings, not only were we ranked – you had four evaluation criteria, and I believe you had three or four evaluators. We were number one in all evaluators and all four criteria. So that's why we came out as a one, whereas our next closest – Go ahead. Our next closest competitor was a three, meaning they received enough evaluations that weren't even twos. They received threes and accommodation twos. The last point – Why did you wait so long to present the SOC 2 letter? So here's what – it was a mistake. It was a mistake. But it was a mistake because we – the date was 60 days. So internally, there was no urgency to do it because we believed that the 60 days was business days. I get that. But, I mean, why did you not do it on the 20th day or the 30th day or the 50th day? Again, it was – to be honest, the person whose job that was has been dismissed because of this issue in part. But I'll make a point out, Mayor. The point is – and this is why it really goes to a minor regularity and a technicality that should be thrown out. And these are the following reasons for that. Under procurement law, something is a minor regularity when there are two things. A, did we get a competitive advantage by submitting this untimely? Of course we didn't for that same reason. We have it. It wasn't part of the evaluations. And two, the other condition for a minor irregularity is, is there a guarantee that the government is going to get what it wants under this procurement? So it's not like we told you we were going to build this with steel type 3 in our proposal and we're going to give you something else. You know exactly what's in our proposal. So it's those two things that trigger a minor irregularity. Then it's permissive, and so that's really what our bid protests focus on. Glenn here, in all due respect, said he declines to determine that you should waive this minor irregularity. But you should do it for these reasons, and those are the three reasons. One, there was ambiguity as to what the date was, working days or not working days. Two, we're the highest ranked by far, and so what's in the best interest of the government? That's why you should waive this irregularity. Three, we did have it. We had it as of the report was issued in October. I think if you look at it, it's in the backup. If you look at the backup report, we had it as of October, and we failed to submit it. And then the last point, Mayor, is we submitted it when you guys asked for it. You asked for it on November 13th, and we gave it to you the same day. Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Ellen Bogdanoff, followed by Mark Stempler. Thank you, Mayor. And I apologize. I didn't hear that you had called my name. I guess I wanted to set up one thing. I think the protester has unilaterally tried to change the terms of the RFP. There's something in procurement called a fatal flaw. And that is, is that it is so important that if you fail to provide it, you're thrown out. Well, you could be the best, but you're thrown out because you didn't follow the rules of the procurement. Bottom line is, they already protested the SOC 2. They lost that protest because IT said this is extremely important. And at the end of the day, they didn't even want to negotiate with somebody who wasn't going to be able to provide the SOC 2. I'll tell you the one major fact that everybody keeps leaving out, and that is they should have never been evaluated. They had a fatal flaw. They did not provide the SOC 2, which by the city was an extremely important component to protect the citizens who are going to be involved in the data that's going to be collected. So I think what we have here is everybody keeps kind of talking about what happened. Yes, staff made an error. But the biggest error was allowing them to be evaluated in the first place. The date that that SOC 2 letter was November 5th. The evaluation for the shortlist was November 13th. So the bottom line is, and we can talk about the process itself, but I think they're unilaterally trying to change the RFP, claiming that they should be included. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mark, is Greg Parks here? So you want me to add you to the number of speakers? We're doing M2 and M3 at the same time. So, okay. Mark Stampler again from the Becker Forum on behalf of Red Speed. Look, the RFP requirements are crystal clear on this, that they had to provide the SOC 2 report on time, and they failed to do so. There were no problems with the RFP. There were no problems with the city's process. The only problem was Blue Line didn't comply with the express requirements of the RFP. That is a fatal flaw, as Ms. Bogdanov said. There was no reason to give Blue Line another bite at the abitals. The company that's telling you that they're the best couldn't even comply with the city's own simple requirements. That should be a concern for the city. Reversing course now, and not awarding this to Red Speed, would actually be contrary to the RFP's terms, contrary to the city of Fort Lauderdale's code, and contrary to Florida law. They are non-responsive. Under the definition set forth in the city's code, under the definition set forth in the RFP, they are non-responsive. And Florida law is crystal clear that it's wholly improper for an agency not to follow the terms of its solicitation or its code. The object of competitive procurement is to ensure the sanctity of the process. The city upheld its bargain in this. It conducted a flawless procurement process, and it should see that through an award to Red Speed. I understand there's the issue about the date that the SOC 2 was submitted, but the deadline was clear. They had 60 days, and if you look at the language of Amendment 3, you'll see that the city made it an express requirement. It was mandatory, and they failed to follow it. The excuse that they had the report all along but didn't submit it, even taking that at face value would be concerning, I would think, for the city. So I think if you have to follow your code, you have to follow the express terms of the RFP. You have to follow Florida law. The city has already decided it works, you go to Red Speed. But if I'm hearing Glenn right, he's saying, and Glenn's with the city, the city's process was not flawless. No, it was because – That's not what Glenn said. The RFP is crystal clear that the only way to amend a deadline that's set forth by the RFP specifications is through an addendum. The RFP is clear in two different provisions, including on the very first page of the RFP, that unless it's changed by an addendum in writing, the deadline wouldn't change. The requirement wouldn't change. And Blue Line knew this. Blue Line was familiar with the RFP. Okay, great, thanks. Okay, let me ask Glenn. Thank you. Glenn, if I heard you right, I thought you said in your summary that there was an inappropriate extension or given by a member of the procurement team. That is correct, Commissioner. On November 13th, when the EC met, right after that shortlist presentation, the procurement staff member did erroneously ask for the SOC 2 report when it should have been submitted all along approximately a week before the EC meeting. So just – so I wouldn't say it's flawless. There were some mistakes. You don't have to refute that, but I just want to – I would just point out that at that point, the process had already completed because the evaluation committee took place, the meeting took place. Okay. Thank you. Greg Parks, do you want to speak? Greg, you don't indicate on your form here on whose behalf you're speaking. Thank you, Mayor Commissioner. It's Greg Parks. I'm with Red Speed. Okay. Appreciate the time. I'll be brief. A little background on the procurement. You know, we could bury on the flawlessness or not evidence, but you have a great staff, and they run good processes. I've worked with the city on other projects. It's always a joy to work with the city. We are by far the most experienced vendor. We have about 70% of the market in Florida. I serve clients like Miami-Dade, Hillsborough County, Tallahassee, several in Broward. And the importance of the SOC 2, we did play by the rules, and we followed the process, and I think that needs to have the merit, I believe, is associated with it. The SOC 2 is not just an esoteric standard put in by your staff. In order to run license plates through Florida DHSMV, you have to have this SOC 2. And the reason that's so important is you want the most up-to-date address for the registered owner because if it goes to the wrong address, it can become a UTC, it can have driver's license implications, et cetera. So it's a real standard that was put in by very prescient staff, and we did play by the rules. It went to the effort to obtain that. And, again, our position, and we appreciate your consideration, is that our very worthy competitor, Blue Line, shouldn't have even been shortlisted because they didn't meet the standards of the city. So that's all I had to say. Okay. All right, great. I have a couple questions for Mr. Parker. First, could you tell us what a UTC is? Oh, Uniform Traffic Citation. I apologize, Commissioner. All right. You know, all these acronyms. She's never gotten one of those. I get it. You know, all the alphabet soup with all of these acronyms. You just drink a lot of cranberry juice for that. It's okay. Don't worry. And the reason, that would be adjudicated down at the county courthouse. That part I understood. Yes, ma'am. Just wanted to make sure that I knew what the acronym was. And also, you went into a territory that you talked about Miami-Dade. And if I could, what is your relationship with Miami-Dade, your service that you're giving them? We provide this exact service to Miami-Dade County. Okay, how long have you been with them? About a year. About a year? Since inception. Okay. My question is, how much service, how many, what is the contract? How many cameras? It's for 206 schools. 206 schools. How many are actually implemented now? There's about 40 now. It's the county's desire to phase them in for a variety of reasons. Okay. So, over a year, 206 schools, 40 have been served? Correct. Okay. You mentioned Broward as well. What schools are in Broward? We have contracts with Plantation, Deerfield Beach, and I think Coconut Creek. Plantation. How many cameras are in service for them? None are in service now. And that is, the city would attest to this. They're going through some county permitting. It's a new process. No vendors have any county permits, and they want to do all the schools at one time. So, the schools that are live in Broward, we have a few in Deerfield. Okay. But you're saying that the ones in Broward right now, no one has been serviced? Not on county roads. No, man. Oh, no. On county roads. Not on county roads. No, man. Okay. So, I'm not familiar with Plantation. They have some city roads. Have those been released? No, those are ready to go, but as I might not have stated clearly, on the record, the city has said that they want to do everything at once. Okay. And that's for both Deerfield and Coconut Creek? Yeah, Deerfield has some live schools now. How many? I think three or four. And how many is for their contract? Six, I believe, and I'm speculating on that. We have live cameras. We have over 100 live cameras in the state, by far the most. Okay. Because what I'm trying to get to is how quickly will these cameras be implemented if we go in the same direction? Because if the county has 206 and they only have 40 and they're a year in. If I could, I didn't mean to interrupt you, Commissioner. I apologize. The 40 is not an honor and inability to deliver. It would be unfeasible for a whole variety of reasons. The 206 at one time from staffing, adjudication, review. So, that is not a delay on our part in that instance. Okay. So, all right. So, out of the 206, it's the 40 that's in place right now from Dayton. Yes, ma'am. Approximately. And that's a little under a year contract. Correct. Okay. I think that's all I have right now. Thanks. Okay. Mayor, if I could jump in. Go right ahead. Thanks, Greg. How many school zones are in the city of Fort Lauderdale? Well, I don't know that off the top of my head. We tested, along with concurrence from purchasing a police department, we tested 53. So, there's at least 53. Okay. And how many of those do you think should be, what should be the phasing of implementing those? Well, we would work at the city's discretion. Since the procurement, we have developed a solar solution, which we've implemented very quickly in a number of locations. I have a matter of weeks. So, the time has shrunk since your procurement. So, we would work at the city's direction. So, if the city wanted to move as fast as possible, what do you think? 53, 120 days at least. I mean, it's a process. The permitting being the longest part. Okay. Thank you. But we do have the most relevant experience in that. Thanks. Okay. Any further questions? Anyone else wish to speak on these items, M2 or M3? Thank you. So, I do have a question for Glenn regarding the selection committee. So, if we could, Glenn. So, one of the things that I had kind of questioned when we talked was why the selection committee evaluated the vendor without the required submittals in time. Help me understand how that worked out in the first place. Because I think, from my perspective, from a process perspective, I'm curious to understand how that happened. Because I wouldn't think that if they were not a responsive bidder that we wouldn't even have gone through the selection process. So, help me understand how that worked. So, Commissioner, to give you somewhat of a background on this, we did survey other public agencies to see whether or not they're reviewing the SOG 2 report before or after. It is a mixed bag. There's not a best practice right now when it comes to this. Because some agencies out there do not even require the SOG 2 for whatever reason. We feel that it's important in this city to make sure that the data is secure. So, we did talk about the process. The SOG 2 requirement in this was a little bit fuzzy as far as how we can best fit this and not impact the EC, Commissioner. The EC is probably more equipped to look at qualifications, experience, the references and all that. How we were going to get IT involved in this process was something that I don't think it's a perfect science now. It's probably better getting defined as we go and we learn from this process. But there's not a perfect answer that I can give you. Okay. I know historically, so we've been asking for the SOG 2 report. And before it was a SOG 2 report, it was an SSAE 18. Before that was an SSAE 16. Before that, it was a SAS 70. So, this is not a new report. I mean, this goes back probably about at least 20 years. So, this is nothing new. And I know previously, we had had the finance department review the SOG 2 reports because they are audit reports. So, you're saying now the IT department and our cybersecurity folks are looking at this? They are looking at it and making recommendations. So, that's how we felt comfortable as to whether or not to move forward. We're giving them the SOG 2 report and then they're looking at the findings and then they're providing us with their conclusion on whether or not they feel comfortable with those findings. Okay. Okay. And just, I will strongly reiterate, and I know you guys are doing it, so I appreciate that, that whenever we have anybody that's handling any city data that we have a SOG 2 report or SOG 1. So, for those of you who don't know, SOG 1 is for financial data. SOG 2 is for financial and other personally identifiable information. So, yes, these are absolutely mandatory, and any city that's not requiring it is, frankly, being derelict in its duty to secure its information from fraud and from theft and from hacking and anything else. So, let's keep up the good work on that. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. One other question for clarity. John, Commissioner Herbst just said that the SOG 2 now being reviewed by the IT, with that review, did it meet the qualifications when they received it? Yes, Commissioner. Okay. So, it is whatever they submitted for the SOG 2 is in alignment with what is required. Yes, Commissioner. Mayor, could I ask someone from Blue Line to come up? I said some questions. Sure. Thanks. Mark, what cities or municipalities in Florida are you currently deployed? Hollywood is the nearest one to you. We started that project, I believe, in May, and we got the cameras up. We have, I think, 22 up now. They went live in September. The program has went pretty flawlessly. We were able to get the cameras up efficiently. Finally, the public information education component was done very well with the school system and the various city departments. And the program has produced an 86% reduction in speeders today versus before the program, so it is absolutely working. We also saw an excess of 60% reduction before the first citation was written, and that's because of the public information education program and how that was rolled out. So, any other cities? We have, is it Gretna or Greenwich? I'm sorry. My VP of sales here. Sure. Commissioners, mayor, vice mayor. Yeah, we have Wachula, Sneeds. How many in Wachula? So, we have roughly seven other municipalities. That we have, Holmes Beach, Sanibel Island, a couple others. Okay. How many big cities? Sorry, Merrick, go ahead. How many big cities? Hollywood's the biggest one we have. You do have one. And we have other large cities in other states, such as Savannah, Georgia, Youngstown, Ohio, Shreveport, Louisiana. Greenwich, Connecticut. Greenwich, Connecticut. How many school zones would you install cameras in for Lauderdale? So, we have, actually, so there is 19 school zones that are viable for usage in Fort Lauderdale. There's roughly 16 elementary schools. We have six middle schools and three high schools, I think, is the total there. So, it would be 19 school zones that we would really go live with for this area, based on our conclusions that we have from our speed studies. Okay. It's interesting. You're saying 19. The other group are saying 53. 53, so interesting difference there. Commissioner, maybe it's how many schools versus each school might have two or three different school zones, different approaches. So, I ask school zones to both. They're saying school zones, 19. So, I'm sorry. The way we do it is by school because you could have four streets around a school. And all four may be viable or appropriate to put ASE on. Or there may be only one or only two. So, you could say X number of zones. But, so, Hollywood's a great example, right? They have 92 school zones. But, really, only 38 are going to be able to be used, of which we already have 22 up. And is this public and private? Yeah. No, these are only public. We intend to talk about private as we move forward with all of our agencies. But, right now, that is just for the public schools as required by the RFP. And if I could add to that, Commissioner, we rely very much on data. We would generally do a five-day speed study in every school zone as the beginning component of any program. Then we use that data in conjunction with discussions with the city to determine which of those would be viable. In every case, though, we never want to put you or the chief of police or any elected official in the position of telling a constituent that, no, we're not going to put cameras here because your kids aren't as important as these over here, right? So, what we do in those cases, if the data shows that there is no speeding problem, we would still offer radar feedback signs to put in those locations to show the community the speed as they come into the school zone and to let the community know that they still care. Okay. Susan, why is the RFP only for public schools and not private as well? I don't know if we would have to get permission from the… Generally, yes, ma'am. From the private schools. So, it's something I think we could probably expand to, and I'd have to look at what the law applied to. I thought we talked about this when we were first discussing this whole program. I'm pretty sure we brought up putting it in front of private schools because I wanted this in front of Cardinal Gibbons in my district. So, I know this was something that we discussed. I'm fairly confident about that, and I believe the right-of-way is ours. So, I'm not sure that I need permission to be able to put the cameras along our swale in front of their school. But, you know, we can confirm that. But I'm reasonably confident we talked about this up front. So, I'd like some clarification on that. Not tonight, but can we follow up on that? Thank you. Yeah, I agree. This has to be for public and private schools. I'm not tracking why it's not for both. And it's easy enough to phase those in or do that prior to even starting a program. All we need to do is get the permission from your city to do it. We do it all over the place. Shreveport is like half and half between public and private. And what's the number of days to implement if you're, say, 19 schools? We generally can get cameras up very quickly once permits are achieved. So, if the permits are achieved, we can get cameras up within a week to 14 days. That's just simply doing construction on the side of the road. Thanks. That's good. Can I just clarify that for a second? For Hollywood specifically, and what we presented to the RFP committee was 16 weeks from Hollywood, from the date it was signed to the first school zone implemented. There's no other company that's done it in that time frame, more triple or quadruple. Okay. Susan, I'd like just to hear from Milos or Ben about just permitting. I just want to get a sense of the permitting for this. Milos, I know you were doing something else. My question is, and I don't know who else would handle this, maybe Ben Rogers, but just give me a sense of the permitting process that this would take. What timeline are we looking at for cameras? And can I tie in on that? Can the city be the ones that are applying for the permits, and can we start doing that sooner? Do we have to wait until we have a vendor selected? And I apologize, Commissioner Sorensen, but I want to chime in on this because one of the things that I was very concerned about in conversations with the attorney's office is that we couldn't finalize the ordinance related to the school safety zones until we had selected a vendor, and they've gone out and done the studies, and that data has to drive the actual ordinance. So we don't have an ordinance yet to implement this, if I'm correct. Is that right, Dwayne? That's correct. It's in the process of being drafted by our police legal advisor. Right. So I've been back and forth with the attorney's office on this, and we don't share the same perspective on the data collection and the contracting, but I defer to them because they are the attorneys. But my concern with the whole program is by putting this out for bid again, I just want to make sure that we can do that very quickly. I don't want to see this delayed. I'm afraid we're going to miss a school year, and I'm hopeful that if that's the direction that the commission goes in, that we can turn this around extremely fast because, again, we've got this process now of having to put it out to bid. We're going to have to collect the responses. We're going to have to have a selection committee. It's got to come back to the commission, and only then can they begin to do the data collection, and only then can we get the ordinance. And we're talking six to nine months. We miss the school year. So I want some assurances that if that's the path that you all choose to go down, that we're not a year out. This is too important, and I just want to make sure that I have some certainty that we can accelerate every portion, is that we're moving in parallel paths to do permitting, to do data studies, to do whatever we need to do to get the ordinance drafted so that we can implement this program. I care about the kids more than anything else. One question I'm picking back. Hold on. Can I get my answer? Let me just get this answer, and then you can take it over. So my question was just permitting. What's the permitting length for these cameras? So Commissioner Chris Cooper, Acting Assistant City Manager, I think they would be aligned with how we permitted the license plate reader cameras, which are also cameras that were placed in the right-of-way. I think with those we did a blanket revocable license for multiple locations, and then there's an electrical permit to tie those into the electrical system. So the process is fairly quick. The revocable license would come to commission. That's probably the most time-consuming just because the lead-up time and the review process associated with that, but the actual review of the permitting is fairly quick. Okay. Does the permitting depend on ownership of the road? It does. That's a great point. So if it's a Broward County roadway, we have to defer to whatever the Broward County permit process for licensing those structures in the right-of-way. Our process we obviously have more control over in terms of timing and process, we'd have to look at the Broward County process to understand what that looks like. Great. And then, D. Wayne, when's that ordinance ready? I don't know. We're currently working on it. Okay. This is a – but I wouldn't be able to give you a timeline. Once this is resolved, you go full speed ahead and can get it on as soon as two agendas. Okay. Great. Commissioner Beeson-Pittman, thanks. My question was, I heard that we are waiting for a study to be completed. Did I hear that? A study that's necessary to feed this ordinance? Yes. Is that completed? Does anyone have this study? Are we going to be waiting another three months for a study to move forward with the ordinance? What's the study for? That's embedded as part of the contract. So whoever the contract is awarded to, that would be work that they would do as part of this. I have understood how long does the study take because right now we're still going to be in a wait mode if we're talking about a study that needs to be completed. Yes or no? And Glenn's going to have – So, Commissioner, Red Speed has already concluded their study. Let me just confirm that because I thought we had to select the vendor first, go into contract, and then do the study. I thought in all of our conversations, Dwayne, with you and Eric and myself, we had to have a vendor under contract to be compliant with state law in order to do the studies to enact the enabling legislation. I just want to make sure that we're on the same page, not that anybody can just go out and do a study. It had to be the vendor that selected after we'd gone through the selection process. Well, does someone from Redstone want to respond to that? I want the city attorney's office to respond to that, Mayor, if you don't mind. No, no, that is what we advise the commissioners. Okay. I'm not aware of where we are in the process in terms of this procurement process and the study and how that timing is being scheduled. So, maybe we can hear from Red Speed. So, I'm going to defer to Red Speed, but I think in anticipation of being awarded this contract, they want to head out under their own. Well, let's ask them. Go ahead. Did you do this study that the commissioner refers to? Thank you, Mayor. Yes, Greg Parks with Red Speed. Yes, we completed the study based on direction of the police department at the locations. Okay, great. So, it's ready. To answer your question, the end. No, what was the date trying to – what was the date of the study? Because we're being told that it had to be in a certain order. What was the date of your study being completed? Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be in a certain order. Just as somebody who's done this a lot. But we completed it last week. Okay. We believe you. We believe you. Okay. We need to move forward on this. All right. No one else has signed up to speak. Any further comments or questions? Recommendation from the commission? Yes, I still want to know from the attorney's office if those studies are acceptable to us. Are we in compliance with state law in order to draft our enabling legislation? So, Commissioner, in our discussions, you wanted to move forward with an ordinance. And what our office advised, Eric and myself, was that the ordinance needed to have that study and that in order to complete that study that the city needed to procure a vendor. It's not a requirement of the law that the vendor be procured first, but that we say that the vendor itself would be the ones qualified to conduct the study, which is why we said, you know, don't put the horse before the carriage. Get a vendor on board. Get the study done. And then we can complete our ordinance. And so do we have a vendor? We do not have a – technically we don't have a vendor at this point. We do not, but apparently we have a study. So they did that at their own peril in anticipation of being awarded a contract once we did the notice of intent to award. I get that, but every one of the vendors could have gone out and done their own study. We could have seven studies right now, which would tell us seven different things. So, again, I don't know how you proceed with the enabling legislation based on a study done by somebody who is not yet a vendor when the vendor study is a conditioned precedent to the enabling legislation. So, correct. And part of your discussion tonight, also, you're talking about the potential of putting cameras at private schools as well. And so one of the things is – and the study addresses where we place these cameras. There has to be this finding of a heightened safety risk, and that's what that study is supposed to do. So they have to go out there and do the study and determine where these cameras are going to be placed. But is that part of the enabling legislation? Yes. It is. Okay. So the reason why the enabling legislation has not been concluded is because we had not received the results of the study from the approved vendor. Correct. Okay. It's a little weird that that would come first before the enabling legislation, but – I had that argument several times. Yeah. Okay. It's very weird, but also, D. Wayne, so does this study that was conducted, does it include private schools? I don't know. I haven't seen – we haven't seen the study. Okay. All right. Let's decide what we're going to do here tonight. Okay. Now, the vice mayor originally said that he would request that the city defer the item. Is that still your motion? Yes. And listening to all of this conversation, I firmly believe that that's what we should do. We should defer this item, and we should actually go out to rebid and make it a lot cleaner than it is. So you want to deny the appeal and go out for rebid? Well, I don't know, because there's two items that we're facing here. We're looking at two agenda items. M2 is an appeal decision. So if you're going out to bid, you're going to have to address that with M3. So what I would suggest the commission do is to table this item, go to M3, and then reject the award and put it back out. So we can't table M2 and just go to M3? That's possible? Yes. Well, then that's what I would recommend. And then we would have to bring back an item at a future meeting to reject all bids. Yes, because actually, with everything that still needs to happen, when does school start? August what? I find it hard to believe that this is going to get up and running by August whatever in a few months. I just find it hard to believe. So I don't think we're going to really be losing much. All right. Let's make a decision as to what we feel is in the best interest of the city. So for an M2, you're asking us to table M2. Is there a second to that? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. M2 has now been tabled to an indefinite time. M3, motion approving an agreement for an automated school zone system. Vice Mayor? I would actually, well, I'll move to deny. What was your recommendation, Dwayne? Dwayne, what was your recommendation? Do you need something in the affirmative, or can I just move to deny? You can move to deny. I move to deny M3. Okay. Is there a second to that? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Only because I'm concerned about the delay? No. Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And M3 is not approved. So you're going to put that out to bid now, and we're going to try to see if we can, since most people have put together their data and everything, we should have a very short timeline for that. Glenn, how long does this need to be out on the street now at this point? How quickly can we turn this around? We can be aggressive as maybe 21 days. Okay. So anything you can do to get this done as quickly as possible. Is that business days, or is that calendar days? That's not funny, Mayor. That is not. Business days. Be specific. Let's be specific, yes. I mean, the good thing, obviously, is everybody's prepared their bid packages. They'll probably all, now that everybody knows what everybody else's numbers are. That is the one problem with putting things back out to bid is, you know, it undercuts the inherent fairness of the process, but be that as it may, I encourage everybody, please, let's get this done as quickly as possible. Again, my only focus is on getting these cameras out there and protecting the children, like I said, and this has to include Cardinal Gibbons. I have a tremendous speeding problem on Bayview. That's why we put the roundabouts in there. That's why we've done all these improvements to the road, and I still have people thinking that Bayview is a drag strip, and my children in my district are at risk. So let's get this done quickly, please. Commissioner, for a point of clarification, for the edification of the city commission, there was five public high schools listed in the RFP. There was three public middle schools listed in the RFP, 17 public elementary schools listed, and there were four private schools listed in the RFP. I thought so. Okay. I just confirmed. Okay. I know I'm getting old and my memory is fading, but I didn't think it was that bad. And Cardinal Gibbons is one of them. Those roundabouts that everyone thought were non-navigable, they still don't slow people down? No, apparently not. They're driving over them. Yes. Oh, God. Okay. So, Glenn, we have a host of other private schools. Yes. So is that an inclusive list of all the public schools? This is what was given to us by the police department. What was included as part of the private schools, Commissioner Pinecrest School, Cardinal Gibbons High School, St. Thomas Aquinas High School, Aquinas, I'm sorry, High School, and Westminster Academy. Okay. So that's a great start, but that, I mean, we've got to be comprehensive. If we're including all our public schools, does it include all our public schools? It does. Okay. Yeah. So then we've got to equally include, and I don't know what the, you know, bar is in terms of number of students, but we've got to include more than the most listed private schools. Good evening. Ben Rogers, Action Assistant Manager. City, Acting Assistant City Manager. It's a mouthful. Not City Manager. What are you, Ben? Yeah. So, Commissioner, understand the concern. We need to do some research on it. I think a lot of the private schools don't have established speed zone areas through the county. Okay. So, like, I think the one in Rio Vista, I think they've contemplated it before, but there aren't designated speed areas for those schools. So we'll review the list with Glenn. Yeah. We'll also counter review with Broward County Traffic Engineering to figure out where speed zones are already set up. And we'll make sure that the ones that already have existing speed zones are included in the solicitation. Great. Thank you. Because some of those roads are county and state roads, so that might slow things up a bit. But anyway, okay, let's move on. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Glenn. Thank you for the hard work you do. Appreciate it. Thank you. M4, this is a motion approving a piggyback agreement with Rep Services, Inc., utilizing the Clay County Agreement for various equipment and amenities for parks and recreation. No one has signed up to speak. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Second. If we move the seconded, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-House? Yes. And that item is now approved. Moving on to R1, appointment of board and committee members. Mr. Clerk, could you please read the names into the record? For the April 15th resolution, Insurance Advisory Board, David Cooley, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. For tonight's resolution, Board of Adjustment, Howard Elfman, nominated by Vice Mayor Glossman. Samir Yashnik, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Amy Mergler, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Cemetery Systems Board of Trustees, Franklin Adderley, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board, Olga Zamora, nominated by Vice Mayor Glossman. City Attorney Search Committee, Danella Williams, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Housing Authority, the City of Fort Lauderdale Board of Commissioners, Nicholas Trinakis, nominated by Mayor Trinakis, Marine Advisory Board, Jeffrey Coburn, nominated by Vice Mayor Glossman. Northwest Progressive Flagler Heights Redevelopment Board, Christopher Murphy, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. And we received a few additional names after publication. For the Broward County Tourist Development Council, that's Mayor Dean J. Trantelis. Parks, Recreation, and Beaches Board, Don Mizell, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. And Planning and Zoning Board, Barbara Stern, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. And that rounds it out. Okay, so I'd like to introduce a resolution. May I have a question, a point of information on the last item, Barbara Stern for Planning and Zoning. So help me understand this, whether it's the city attorney or the clerk. I was always under the assumption that if you are a filed candidate for office for the commission, you are not able to serve on the Planning and Zoning Board. Can you help me with that? Correct. So what our code provides is that an individual who is appointed to a board or committee, when they become a candidate, they forfeit their role on that board and committee. My understanding is that, in this particular case, that the individual to be appointed is a candidate and that they are removing themselves as a candidate in order to be appointed. Yeah, they submitted a letter of withdrawal. Withdrawing their candidacy in order to be appointed to the board. So the applicant is no longer a candidate for the Office of Mayor and for the City of Fort Lauderdale. So the, I believe it's a conditional withdrawal based on whether or not, if they are appointed, their withdrawal would be effective immediately upon the time that their term of appointment begins. Okay. Again, I'm finding this a little bit convoluted. It's a little bit interesting. I don't think we've ever faced that. But, okay, I, again, it's a little bit different than we've ever seen before. So this person, if ever was announced as a candidate for office for 2028, would just have to withdraw from, I mean, resign from the planning and zoning. It's an automatic forfeiture of the position on any advisory board once you become a candidate. Okay. But as of now, we have a withdrawal as a candidate for office in 2028. That is correct. Okay. Would, and again, I'm familiar with things that have been written by the applicant to the, can we actually, if I'd like to just pull this name for discussion and go ahead with everything else, because I'm having just some questions. Okay. So would you like to introduce a resolution? Actually, I would like to introduce the resolution as proposed. Okay, so a resolution has been introduced to approve the names that have been nominated and the ones that have been added. Correct. So it would be as amended with the three additional names that I wrote. That's correct. A resolution of the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, boarding committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here to and made a part hereof. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glassman? No. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Mayor Trentels? No. Would another resolution like to be introduced? I would introduce a resolution approving all of those nominees minus the planning and zoning appointment. This applicant is a lobbyist, number one, and also has been very active in lawsuits and e-mails against the city, and I'm just not finding it's a comfortable fit for the city's planning and zoning board, which should be above all of that. All right, so there's a resolution that's been introduced to appoint all the named individuals except Barbara Stern for planning and zoning. Please call the roll. A resolution of the city. So this is as amended, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, boarding committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here to and made a part hereof. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glossman? Can you just clarify the vote, the yes or no vote on this? I'm sorry. Yes means to appoint all, to, to, yes means that we're, we're proving all the named individuals except Barbara Stern as planning and zoning. So just removing that, a yes vote removes the planning and zoning nomination. We're just not, we're just taking it off the, the, the, uh, nomination. Yes. That's what you introduced. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentels? Yes. Uh, so now, um, anyone else? So, Commissioner, uh, Vice Mayor, what do you want to say? There's no reason why you pulled her name? Well, I think I've explained that. I, I, I just don't think that this is an appropriate appointment for the planning and zoning board. I, I, I would like to see proof, number one, of the resignation as a candidate, the withdrawal as a candidate. And again, only because of everything I've read over the last several years, this is a person, uh, I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a lobbyist, but we've already expressed how we feel about that when it comes to boards like the planning and zoning board. Uh, we've expressed that very clearly and we're still waiting for that ordinance. Um, but then again, because of all of the actions and the emails and threats against the city, I don't find this a good fit, uh, for the city's planning and zoning board. So I'm going to recommend that we deny that appointment. May I ask a question of Ms. Stern? Ms. Stern, are you a registered lobbyist? Can you, can you come to the podium, please? She signed up to speak, so I was just about to call her. Can you push the button at the bottom, please? Not sure where you got that misinformation from, but I am not a lobbyist, nor have I ever been. I am an attorney. I practice employment law. When Mr. Herbst was wrongfully, uh, terminated from the city, I did represent him. Um, but that is my job, no different than all the other people who serve on boards. They all have jobs. So, um, I did also run for mayor, uh, came in second. 62% of the city, uh, voted against the current establishment. So if I'm going to be attacked, then let's talk about what the issues are. And, uh, I'm no different than anybody else in this city, uh, Mr. Glassman. So, but I am not a lobbyist. Um, you do have lobbyists serving on boards. You have Chris Smith, who's a lobbyist who serves on boards. Um, there are some others. Russ Clinton is a lobbyist who serves on boards. So we keep this discussion going about lobbyists serving on boards, but it only seems to apply to certain people, uh, and not everybody. So that is just my response to your question. Uh, Commissioner Herbst, no, I am not a lobbyist, never have been. And that's all. So I have concerns when, as the vice mayor has just indicated, he wants to withhold her appointment, my, my appointment, by the way, as a district commissioner, um, because he doesn't like things that Ms. Stern has said that, that, that strikes me as a first amendment violation. Uh, Mr. Spence, um, would you care to comment on that? If we're withholding an appointment simply because of somebody's, uh, comments that they've, that they've, uh, directed at the government, um, please, please let me know if that's, if that's. Excuse me, Commissioner Herbst, before, uh, Mr. Spence, before you respond, let's not forget that I was publicly accused wrongfully by this commission, which prompted some of my emails of having planted listening devices, something that I did not do. And those words came directly from the mayor's mouth. So I, yes, address those issues. And I had every right to address those issues after being wrongfully accused of something from the dais. So I'm sorry that you didn't like my emails, but, uh, if I'm not mistaken, Commissioner Glassman, you also accused me wrongfully of having done that. So, so I have been able to defend myself. Yes, I think I should have just as anybody who's been wronged should be able to, and to that, um, and that would also be protected speech, but I'll now defer to Mr. Spence. Well, I mean, in terms of, uh, members being appointed, they serve at the discretion of the city commission. And so is that the discretion of the commission to determine, uh, who serves on the board and the reasons for that? Um, could, could, could free speech be the reason though? So in other words, if I don't want somebody on the board, I can certainly say that. But once you've, once you have enumerated your reason for not wanting somebody on a board as directly related to their protected speech against the government, which is as protected as it gets, I, I find that very, very troubling, deeply troubling. And, um, I, I don't think that that is a valid reason for excluding somebody from public service. Okay. Um, did you, you've given your opinion? Um, yes. Okay. In, in terms of, I, I would be more concerned if the commission was attempting to adopt an ordinance that affected the appointment of individuals based on their speech. But I don't think that's the, the, the particular case. Um, but is this not discrimination? Well, I can't, I can't comment in terms of whether or not it's discrimination based on one board member's, uh, comments with regards to that. It, it is, as you say, if it's with regards to, um, political speech or, or whatever speech, uh, that may be a bit of a troubling basis for the decision, but it's not something that I would deem as actionable against the city. I would probably go a little further than not just a bit troubling. It's deeply troubling, but thank you. Mr. Spence, um, anyone that's, uh, brought forth as an appointment to a board or committee, is it the commissioner or mayor's appointment or is it the entire city commission's appointment? The entire city commission adopts the resolution appointing members. Yes. So it's a little bit like, and I, I know this is a whole different level, but when, uh, president of the United States bring forth appointments to a cabinet, the Senate has a role of advice and consent, correct? And they get to vet the people and they get to look at an entire history of a person and then they get to decide and vote on whether that person is going to be approved as a cabinet member, correct? Our current system provides for a nomination by individual commissioners, uh, to a board or committee and the entire commission voting on that appointment. Almost as an advice and consent. And then that is our decision as a commission and I'll make one. That is correct. Yes. Okay. And I, I just want to also for the record, just take exception to some of the things that Ms. Stern said in terms of her interpretation of people being wrongfully dismissed or planting listening devices that commission meetings. As I take exception and I disagree, uh, with her interpretation, uh, of how she recounted those events. Thank you. Well, it, it's a matter of public record. I mean, there were newspaper articles written about it where I was accused of having done that. So nothing to misinterpret. I mean, it's, it's a fact it, it happened that you planted listening devices. No, that you guys accused me of planting listening devices, but you did not. No, I did not. Okay. Um, and you're no longer a candidate for office in 2028. My resignation was conditional. So should I be appointed? My resignation was effective immediately, which seemingly was accepted. So with no intention of running in 2028, if you were appointed to the planning and zoning board, I don't have to have no intention of running, but I would have withdrawn my candidacy. Correct. Okay. I, I think you've explained it. Okay. Hold on. I have a question for Dwayne. Dwayne, what did, um, did the city commission pass, uh, like expectations for, um, board members? Was there, you've adopted a code of conduct. We did have. Okay. Remind me what that was. Well, there's a whole list of things. Yeah. I just, I think that I'm forgetting if I was on the commission when that happened or not, but what were, no, I don't think I was on the commission. What is that? What, what's it say? Well, there's a laundry list. Yeah. There's a list of items that I was provided for, and it's codified in 2-220 that provides a code of conduct for city boards and committees. Um, there are a number of statements that, uh, board or committee members, uh, affirm that they would, um, adhere to and refrain from. Um, there, I mean, it's, it's a, it's a long, long list. Give me, give me a sense of it, please. If you don't mind. Give you a what now? A sense of what that was. What are those expectations? Okay. Because if we're evaluating people for boards, I'm assuming we want to evaluate people based on, on this. All right. So they say in their capacity as an important board member, they were framed from inappropriate language, including statements that are malicious, threatening, slanderous, disparaging, mean-spirited, vulgar, or abusive. All disagreements, concerns, or criticisms shall be framed in language that is in keeping with dignity and professionalism as an appointed board member and the honor of the respective city board or committee. They will refrain from the use of profanity, intimidation, making disparaging remarks or using an ad homily attacks against other appointed members, city commissioners, the city manager, the city attorney, city staff, citizens, and any setting, including but not limited to public meetings on social media. They will demonstrate dignity, respect, and courtesy towards those who they are in contact with and their capacity as an appointed member and will refrain from abusive, confrontational, disrespectful, intimidating, or ridiculing of fellow members, city commissioners, city management, city attorneys, city staff, citizens. They understand that. Okay. That's great. That's great, Dwayne. Thanks. So there is a speech component to expectation. So, okay. Thank you, Dwayne. Appreciate it. That applies to people once they become members of the board. It doesn't apply to their prior lives, as evidenced by the fact there's many people who have said things that currently serve on boards when that code of conduct was not in place. When was the code of conduct put in place, Dwayne? When did this go live? This was adopted September of 2024. Okay. Great. Thank you. After the whole F-bomb incident. Okay. Is anyone looking to introduce a resolution at this point? Yes. I'd like to introduce a resolution appointing Barbara Stern to the Planning and Zoning Board. Okay. Any other comments or questions? No one else has signed up to speak. Okay. Please call the roll. A resolution to the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or dominating, if applicable, board and committee members, that's the fourth thing it's a bit attached here to and made a part hereof. And this is in reference to Barbara Stern to Planning and Zoning. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glossman? No. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? No. Mayor Trentals? No. So that appointment is not made. Moving on to R2. I'm going to make a statement now, Mayor. Please go ahead. So, you know, I'm seeing a very disturbing trend taking place amongst my colleagues. We've apparently thrown out any respect for what district commissioners want to do. So we rejected Pam's appointee at a previous meeting. We're rejecting my appointee. I've had Commissioner Sorensen call up items in my district. So apparently district commissioners no longer matter. So I'm glad that we've established that. And I'm glad we've established this new precedent of how we're going to behave as a body. Collegiality no longer exists. So thank you very much. I look forward to the next couple of years. It's going to be a hell of a ride. Commissioner Herbst, which item did I call up? You called up the water side. That's actually incorrect. I withdrew that one. I know. But you made the call up in the first place, which is why I didn't bother calling it up, because apparently you felt it appropriate to insert yourself into projects in my district. So don't be surprised when I do that in your district. Okay. Thank you very much. Which item did you say you called up? The water side, which I called up, and then I found out Commissioner Herbst was not going to be at the meeting. So I withdrew my call. But I called it up. But, yeah. Mayor, I understand you calling it up, because obviously you represent people citywide, and I think that's appropriate. But I did not think it was appropriate for Commissioner Sorensen to insert himself into my district. I would not do that in your district. But apparently all bets are off. So you withdrew that. I withdrew the call up. You withdrew it because I wasn't going to be here. You had no business doing it in the first place. Ah, okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner. D. Wayne, can any commissioner call up any item that comes before the city commission? Yes. Okay, so it doesn't have to be in your district. And I've heard you defend your district on multiple occasions, Vice Mayor. I'm talking to D. Wayne Spent. I'm talking to, excuse me, I have the floor, and I'm talking to the interim city attorney. I'm not talking to you. I thought he had answered your question. No, he didn't. I'm still talking to him. So, I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Any city commissioner or mayor can call up anything in the city. We actually work on behalf of the entire city, don't we? Well, that's a rhetorical question. Yes. So, why don't we move on? I think that's right. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to R2. Be prepared. This is a resolution delegating authority to the city manager to submit a grant application to the Florida Inland Navigation District regarding waterway assistance program for the International Swimming Hall of Fame seawall replacement. So, this is money that's coming from the Florida Inland Navigation District. Anyone have any questions? No one has signed up to speak. Please call the roll. Oh, wait. Someone would like to introduce the resolution. Someone would like to introduce. It's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution to the city commissioner of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing the city manager to submit a grant application in the amount of $8,041,538 to the Florida Inland Navigation District for seawall improvements for the International Swimming Hall of Fame peninsula located at 501 Seabreeze Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, subject to conditions and delegating authority to the city manager to execute any and all documents necessary or incidental to the grant application providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst, Vice Mayor Glossman? I have a question, Susan. And I – hold on one second. I apologize. This is – This is R2. Yes, R2. Seawall by the ice shop. Okay. So, if we do not get the $8 million grant, what is Plan B? Who is responsible for taking care of the seawall? Oh, it would be the project company, the Hall of Fame Partners. If we do receive the grant, it will bring down the cost of the project and ultimately the lease payment that we would make under the agreement. Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure that was clear to folks that came up at my pre-agenda meeting last evening. Thank you. Yes, David. Commissioner Beasley-Piven? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent House? Yes. And R2 is now approved. R3, a resolution delegating authority to the city manager to submit a grant for the Florida Inland, excuse me, Navigation District. This is regarding the public dock and promenade design. No one has signed up to speak. Anyone wishing to speak? All right. No one. Please call the roll. Oh, someone would like to introduce the resolution. Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the city commissioner of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing the city manager to submit a grant application in the amount of $500,000, to the Florida Inland Navigation District for the public dock and promenade design for the International Swimming Hall of Fame Peninsula, located at 501 Seabreeze Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, subject to conditions and delegating authority to the city manager to execute any and all documents necessary or incidental to the grant application in providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent House? Yes. And R3 is now approved. Public hearings. This is a PH1, a resolution authorizing the transfer. Of two city-owned properties located at 9 SW 6th Avenue and 15 SW 6th Avenue, along with the city's interest in the vacated alley, to the Performing Arts Center Authority, and authorizing the city manager to execute the conveyance instruments. No one has signed up to speak. Do I have to close public hearing? D. Wayne? Yes, sir. Okay. Would someone please move to close public hearing? Moved. Do I hear a second? Second. They've moved and seconded. Please call the roll. This is to close public hearing. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent House? Yes. And public hearing on PH1 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission, of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing conveyance of two city-owned properties located at 9 Southwest 6th Avenue and 15 Southwest 6th Avenue along the city's interest in a vacated alley, to the Performing Arts Center Authority, pursuant to Section 8.02 of the city charter, subject to terms and conditions, authorizing the proper city officials to execute the conveyance instruments and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent House? Yes. And PH1 is now approved, PH2, public hearing, quasi-judicial resolution, approving the – oh, we're going through this again – approving the designation of a historic landmark of the property commonly known as the Frank-Croysin House. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in. The Commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Commissioner Herbst, do you have any additional disclosures of Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No additional. I do not either. Vice Mayor? Conversation with Michaela Conka from the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation. And Commissioner Sorensen? Let's see, Michaela, an applicant. So let me ask a question here. Has anything changed since the last time this was brought up? Because the original issue and the reason why we – one of the reasons why we deferred this was because there was some concern – this is a singular building within a condominium complex. And apparently there was not a majority consent by the condominium board to the designation of this house as being historic. Has any of that changed since the last meeting? And several people have signed this – Ira, do you want to respond to that? Ira Marcus? Yeah. I think the applicant had requested to speak first on the – Oh, Michaela? Okay. All right. Ira, sorry. The applicant. Has anything changed since the last meeting, Michaela? The only thing that's changed, Mayor, is we now are in complete understanding of the HOA guidelines and the ownership of the property. Well, that I know. Okay. So is this an adverse – is this an adverse designation? Has the majority ownership of the condominium association signed on to have this building considered historic within its property rights? No. No, they have not. It has not. So this is an adverse designation. Well, I would like to say that it is not an adverse designation. Okay. Tell me why it's not. Well, the reason I would like to state that is because if the commissioners recall, we had a similar situation a few years back with the castle in Tarpon River. And the final decision from the commission was to designate the castle and the land in which it sits. And I believe, in this case, the Frank Croissant House is eligible for historic designation based on the structure itself and the dirt in which it sits, which would eliminate the issues that were confronted with the property owner of the castle. Did he agree to agree to the castle? Did he agree to the owner of the castle? Did he not eventually agree to that? Once he heard that the castle was going to be designated based on the dirt in which it sat, only the land underneath it. That was the only reason he agreed to it. Otherwise, he was continuing to argue against it. We had made that application based on the entire parcel, Mayor. And when it came, when it finally came down to the decision, do we walk away from the designation or do we find a way to resolve it? And the resolution was to designate the castle and only the dirt on which it sits. And that's what I'm suggesting take place with the Frank Croissant House tonight. Do we designate the dirt? The Frank Croissant House and the dirt in which it sits. Okay. So I'm confused. Yeah. You can designate one without the other? You can just designate dirt? Yes, you can. You need to come to my district because I've got a lot of dirt you can designate. Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny. Is there a structure sitting on the dirt? No. That's the difference. But that's what we just said, what would be the difference. Yeah, she's being facetious about the dirt. When you designate the foundation, the underlying land, you automatically designate the building. Okay, because we had so many structures that were demolitioned for lack of whatever reason. Yeah. And the property still has that history to the community. Right. So that's why I'm asking the question. Yeah. But it's been clarified. Thank you. I would agree with you, Commissioner, with regards to that. But that would take a new ordinance. Is there anything else you'd like to add to your comments? No. I think that IRA should have an opportunity to probably say something. Okay. Okay, Michaela, I just want to understand something. So what you're asking for is now not what the original application has in it, but you're only narrowing it down to now just the structure? Just the structure. Just the structure. And how many parties own just the structure? Three. It's 1313. One party, it's an entity. So there are three parties who are part of the condominium, and then one of the parties is a corporation of which there are how many members? No, three. Three. So there are three members of the corporation. That is one entity within the condominium. Yeah. For the record, the entity that owns the building that is at issue, that is the historic structure, is 1313 South Andrews Corp. Right. And has the majority of 1313 South Andrews Corp. agreed to the designation? I can only represent to you that I'm here. My two partners are not here. One of them has abstained, and one of them has objected. So it's a stalemate. Well, it's not a... One yes, one no, and one doesn't vote. Yeah. It's not really a stalemate, but I'll let you finish with her. Well, I mean, look, it's... Did you have a majority approve it? In the corporate minutes, does it show that the majority has approved the designation of the historic status? The answer is obviously no. Okay. That's important. I'm just trying to get to the facts. Okay. Okay. And so all of the condominium members, okay, I think there are three members? Yes. Okay. Has the majority voted to approve the designation? They're here to tell you... The answer is no. No. Okay. And I would tell you that that's irrelevant. Okay. I understand. I understand. I'm just trying to see if there's any positive approval on the side of the ownership group to allow this to be designated. So if the city commission approves the historic designation tonight, it's against the interests of the condominium and against the interests of the corporation, which is a member of the condominium. Am I understanding all of that correctly? Yes, sir. No. Okay. Tell me no. Tell me why. Well, very simply, unless I'm under a gross misunderstanding about why this city passed the historic designation ordinance to begin with, then I'll just leave because it is my understanding. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that if the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation has the authority or the power to go around the city and designate particular structures that it feels qualifies under your ordinance. And since the city has an ordinance in place, and let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that this application comes before this commission with the perimeter of a presumption of designation based upon the hearing before the Broward Preservation Board. Remember, they reviewed it. There was a public hearing. There was opportunity to present opposition. They reviewed the criteria that's in your ULDR 47.24.11c.7. And I would remind you exactly of what the ordinance is that is the issue before you. No, wait, wait, Ira. I'm not disagreeing with you that the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation has the right to make this application. There's no doubt about that. I'm just trying to figure out if there's owner buy-in to it. And so far, I've not seen owner buy-in. It doesn't mean that the city can't still designate it historic. We've done that before. Right. Okay? So – but I'm just trying to see if there is owner consent to it. And so far, I've not seen owner consent. It doesn't mean we're going to deny the designation. I just want to see where the parties stand on this position. That's all. It's real simple. So there's no dispute about that, and I don't speak for the other members of the association, but I will tell you they're here. They're going to object to it. Okay. I would tell you in good conscience, one of my partners, he objects to it only because he wants more money for the building. One of my partners abstained. So I'm not sure you could take the abstention as one side or the other. But in any event, let's get past that. Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add to your comments? Yes, I would. Okay. Please go ahead. Okay. Assuming that the Broward Trust had the authority to go around and designate, I would think that it is without question, anyone that knows this building, it's historic. And if you refer to your ordinance that I think governs what you do here tonight, it specifically says that any specific building, site, structure, or group of buildings that has significant architectural or aesthetic significance, and it has the following attributes. And all the attributes under the ordinance have been already pre-qualified by the Historic Preservation Board. So we meet all the criteria. So the issue for the commission tonight is whether it wants to adhere to the policy of the city that not only has adopted an ordinance, but it has adopted other amendments to incentivize the preservation of historical structures. Since there's no debate about whether or not this is a historical structure, then the issue is greater than the objection on behalf of the condominium board, who only objects on the basis of the fact that, oh, my building may be less money, worth less money. I would suggest to you that that is not a legitimate criteria for this commission to consider. The criteria that this commission should consider is what value does this building have to the heritage and the history and the community and the education of our children and grandchildren to this city? To take into consideration the individual monetary concerns of certain individuals, while I recognize everybody makes investments and is entitled to a return on their investments, as I am, this is bigger than that. So either the city has a policy for recognizing historic structures and preserving them, or they don't. And then if you have that policy, which is why you passed the TDR amendments to incentivize designation of historic structures, and there are parking reductions and tax reductions, there's no sense to pass any of those resolutions unless you're going to override the objections that are here. No one has come here, and no one will be able to come here to say that the building does not qualify to be designated. They'll give you personal. I don't think that's the issue, Ira. No one disagrees with you there. Okay. And the other thing that I would just like to add, and I don't want to belabor the point, is that, again, if you look at the handful of buildings that are preserved in this building, the Casablanca restaurant, the Stranahan house, the Coca-Cola building, Reed Tolbert's firehouse, if we let this building go, it will be a travesty for the future of this city. So you do what you want. I just think it would be a shame to lose this structure. Okay. All right. Thank you. I have a question. Go ahead. Ira, you gave reference to an educational component. What is in place that's going to be educational to this generation and generations ahead? Oh, that's a great point. That's part, if you look up or research, as I have, the reasons why city and counties preserve historic properties, one of the reasons is to educate the community and our children about the history of the city in which they live in the community. For example, the crossing house was built by a renowned developer in Fort Lauderdale in the 20s. It was designed by a renowned architect, Francis Abrea. And it's important that communities have a sense of history, a heritage, where we came from, what were we like back in the 20s. That's the educational component. So, this building is going to be open to the public to come and view and come inside, be able to tangibly put their hands on it and work with it? Anytime they want to come into my building, they're welcome to come in. I invite the public. It's a showpiece, and I've restored it. It's absolutely beautiful. It's an exquisite example of Mediterranean revival architecture. And, yes, the public is welcome to come into my building at any time. Thank you. Mayor. Yep. By the way, do we have a slide to show the house? No. Okay. Well, we have it in the application that was submitted to the Historic Preservation Board, a photo of the existing structure. Anyone that looks at this house knows what this house means to the city of Fort Lauderdale. So, I want to just – I want to continue your discussion about what's in front of us this evening. And while I understand the sentiment and the feelings of folks that have an issue with a designation that is not agreed to by all ownership parties, I will say to us, then, we need to change our ordinance. We have a unified land development regulation that does not talk about that. So, if we are really – and I hear so much about process all the time. So, if we're going to really talk about process, then let's talk about process with regards to historic designation. Let's talk about process with regards to what our responsibility is as a certified local government, a federal program that carries down through the state of Florida, and then to us. We signed on, and we have a responsibility to adhere to that process. So, our unified – I'm sorry, our ULDR and our historic preservation element talk very specifically about what's before us and what that process is. So, when this application came before the Historic Preservation Board, it was brought forth by the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation, which is totally kosher when it comes to our ordinance. Is it not, Mr. Spence? That's correct. One of the entities that can bring a recommendation for a historic designation is a nonprofit that focuses on historic preservation. Right. So – and there are not that many, okay, just so you know. I could maybe think of the Broward County Historical – Historic Preservation Board. I can think of the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation, perhaps even history, history Fort Lauderdale. I can't think of really many more that could actually say, hey, City of Fort Lauderdale, look at this structure. We should really talk about – Can't our city do it? Yes, and the city. Right. And the city. The city can bring forth the application. The Historic Preservation Board can bring forth the application. But here, the Broward Trust, with this particular owner, said yes. So the only thing really before the Historic Preservation Board and before us is, does it meet the criteria for historic designation? Everything else is not relevant, as was said earlier, to this process. If you want it to be relevant to this process, then we need to get to work on the ordinance. But if we don't, then we are totally breaking with the process. So when this came before the Historic Preservation Board, several criteria were identified as why this is a historic structure. One – Wait, wait, wait. Vice Mayor, I don't think anyone disputes that it complies with and qualifies to be a historic structure. That is not the issue. We all agree – What's the issue? The issue is whether or not we want to apply the designation to a property where not all the owners are in favor. Where is that in the ULDR? I'm not saying it's an ULDR. I'm just saying it's an issue. There are property rights issues. People are concerned about the city coming in, swooping down, and designating something historic, and they don't have the – I understand, but the Supreme Court of the United States has waited. What do they know? On those property rights issues that you're talking about. I'm just saying – no, Mayor, please, let me – I have the floor. I have the floor, Mayor. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We can go on all night about this. The historic nature of this is not questioned. Okay? We all agree that it has – it qualifies as a historic structure. So you don't have to go into all that. Fine. So then you are prepared to violate our ULDR. You are prepared to go against – no, I'm very serious. I'm not prepared to do anything. I haven't even said – I'm giving an opinion yet. I understand what you – Don't accuse me, Vice Mayor. I am accusing you. Mayor and Vice Mayor, if I may, just to kind of – Yes. Will you help us out here? So we are in a quasi-judicial hearing process at the moment. So it is a hearing in which you need to consider the criteria that's outlined in the ULDR and determine whether or not the structure meets that criteria. And the reason why I'm stressing this is that it is appealable and will be placed on the record in terms of whether or not it meets the criteria or not becomes a record of that meeting. So what is yours going to – So does the interest of the property owner – Mayor, step back from your microphone. You're swallowing in your microphone. Does the interest of the property owner weigh in on whether or not the city has the authority to designate this as historic? Our ordinance or the ULDR does not place as part of the criteria the interest of the property owner. Okay. That's all we needed to know. So right now all we're trying to determine is whether or not under the ULDR it meets the qualifications of being historically – gets a historic status. That's correct. Okay. Yes. And that was the charge of the Historic Preservation Board, and only one person voted no when this came before Historic Preservation Board. And I agree with our interim city attorney. That is our only charge. Anything else puts us in a very tenuous legal situation. Tenuous. Yes, because we are not following the ULDR. We are looking at things that have no consideration in our ULDR. And again, if you're not comfortable with that, then we need to change the ordinance. But right now, it is very clear what our charge is as a city commission, the same charge that came before the Historic Preservation Board. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just would like one last comment. Can you put – yes. And I concur with Vice Mayor Glassman completely. And in fact, at the HPB meeting, many of which Vice Mayor Glassman stated, I stated as well, is that the focus for the HPB is to stay focused on whether or not the House fit the criteria and to stay focused on the city's ULDR and ordinances about – in terms of why they are on that board. Okay, okay. And, Commissioner, you're all in the same position, essentially. Okay, all right. Let's move on. Because three other people have signed up to speak. Yes. You've done. You're done. Chris Brennan, followed by Donald Benson, followed by Alberto Casabedo. Is Chris – where's Chris? Chris. Good evening, everyone. I'm Christopher Brennan. I'm a member of the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation, and I'm the treasurer for the organization. And I'm here to speak on behalf of saving that house. I want to keep it there. I want to designate it historic. And you guys have been great in the past, working with me to save not only the First Lutheran Church, but the castle, which Daniel Cole went down kicking and screaming. I'm his neighbor. So I face the full wrath of that decision. And tonight I'd ask you to designate this, because one thing that seems consistent whenever I find opposition to the preservation of a historic site, one thing, greed. It boils down to greed. It's the only reason they don't designate something historic, because they can flip it for more money. And, unfortunately, designating it historic, that would prevent them from doing that. And I just – I would implore you not to side with greed tonight and side with preservation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Donald, followed by Alberto. Good evening. Alberto Casaretto. I'm representing Alira LTD, one of the condo association members. So I'm against the historic preservation. As you mentioned, the Cross-On-Place Condo Association is against the designation. One of the comments here was that the Historic Preservation Society has voted on this for four to one. And as you guys know, we're here because there was some misrepresentation on the ownership of this building. Okay. And so Broward Trust, when they went, if you look at the minutes of the HPD, more than 70% of the minutes is talking about ownership. So let me just stop you right there. I think the issue of ownership, it's been decided that we're not allowed to really take that into consideration on whether or not determining this has historic designation status. I get that. And there was some discussion about process up here. And so if that's true, do you think that the ownership of this entity had any say on whether the historic preservation made a decision to agree? Because I think if they talked about it for 60% of the time, if you look at the minutes, okay, maybe that sways a vote. And so I think the Broward Trust misrepresented this property to the HPD. They basically showed up there saying that the owner was Mr. Marcus. And basically they were all in agreement to have this historic preservation. So Mr. Marcus was also asked, you know, if the ownership was there. And he said yes. Okay, so again, another misrepresentation of this entity. So I think that those statements could have made a decision at the Historic Preservation Board that led to a 4-1 vote. Okay. And the other thing is, you know, they said that they notified all the owners. Well, if they only thought Marcus was the owner, the only one they sent that to is Marcus. Okay? Okay. And the other part is, you know, the land. The land is, you know, underneath. We already straightened that out, right? You guys are talking about the land under the building, which is part of the condo association, right? The condo association is part of that. And Mr. Marcus is in the process of selling the building. If he loved the building for its historic value, I'm not sure he would be selling it. That's number one. Number two is, you know, if the land below it is designated historic, does that mean that the condo association is getting the tax benefits and potential transferable development rates? I don't know if we can comment on that, but we understand your point of view. Thank you. Mr. Benson. I'm one of the owners of the portion of the condominium. I have Benson Holdings. There's three corporations that are involved in this that I think you're all aware of. And the two corporations have specifically voted against this going forward. The third owner, the people in the building itself, only one has voted to go forward with this. They've told you one abstained, and one person says no. We understand. We understand. We understand that the ownership has not agreed to this designation. We understand that. Thank you. It's my contention that making this the type of building that you want to do, it destroys the character of our condominium as to what can be done with it in the future. If this building can't be touched or can't anything be done to it later on, then it affects the sale of all the other portions of the condominium, and I have a problem with that if that's going to affect us at this particular time. As to this building being designated, I also have some issues that I went and did some research as to the individual involved. He apparently, and there's a history on him called Jane's History, and she goes through how this individual had been sued and had not made his payments with the different people that he was doing work for. Who are we talking about? Who are we talking about? Mr. Croycent, Frank Croycent, the gentleman who owned the building. If it's being done as a result of him. Well, let's not cast aspersions on this guy. I mean, it's like he's been dead 100 years, so, I mean. Well, I apologize for that. It's not about the person. It's about the house. Okay. We need to change the name of the whole neighborhood now. Both. That's both. My God. It's with both. I don't agree with it. It's just the property. All right. Let's move on. Mayor, we've been tearing down statues in this country and been changing names of buildings and doing all kinds of things because we don't like the people associated with them. So let's not say it's not about the people. The people and the place are tied together. I believe that's actually in the historic preservation rules. But it's not under the ULDR. So please, please proceed. Thank you. The other aspect that I found is a Sun Sentinel news article on him that he was held as a member of a lottery ring and was arrested in the past. Trying to make this building stand out as to something different. There's been many, many buildings that have been torn down in this city over the last few years. As we can see, just by driving up and down and see all of the huge buildings that have been placed in their stead, and I don't think that that's appropriate to do it to this particular building. Okay. We understand. Again, none of us, none of the owners, except one person approves of this at this particular time, and I think it's wrong to inflict this on the condominium. There were some issues I want to address in the very beginning in reference to, I hope it's been made clear with what I just heard earlier, that only the building is being discussed because they attempted to do both parking lots, a portion of one and a full complete portion of the second parking lot to be declared a historical law. This is just the building and the land underneath, correct? Well, the problem with that is the building, the land underneath, is a common element of the condominium. Well, so is the building. Huh? The building is a unit of the condominium. Right, but it's owned by a unit owner. Wait, wait, wait. I know a little bit about this. It's a limited common element. In reference, what do you mean when you say it? The building itself is a limited common element. No. In a condominium, nobody owns the brick and mortar. They only own the space within which you occupy the building. And therefore, they don't own the land underneath it. So if you have a condominium and you own apartment 1603, you don't own the land below it. Or the building. Or the whole building. Correct. Yes, yes. With that in mind, let me finish with my objection to it being done. Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? We're all done. We're done. Mayor, just a question, and maybe this is to you because you might understand this component of it. So the request is for designating the building and the land under it. Under it, yes. Under it, okay. So what would happen if just the building was designated and not the land under it? What impact, maybe it's to DeWayne. I don't know. What impact does that have on this dispute if it was just the building? What do you have to say to that? So the protections that our ordinance has for the historically designated structures would apply to that structure. So if there are any alterations, they would have to seek a certificate of appropriateness. There are other... I get that, but I'm saying if the land were not designated, does that... Can we separate the land from the building and designating this as historic is the question? We can, but... Oh, I thought you were talking to the effects of... No, no, not the effects. Just can we separate... Our ordinance has embedded in it a protection for the land on which a historic structure is located. So typically, if you didn't do any alterations to it, if you designated a site, you also are... If you designated a structure, you're also designating the surrounding land, but you can specifically call that out. So what happens if the house burned down and we had designated the building and the land, what can you do with the land after it's been designated, historic, if the house burned down? You have to go through the process of de-designating or removing the designation. So I don't know why we have to designate the land. Right. If we just do the house itself... I agree. I mean, if that's the pleasure, I don't know what, you know... Someone hasn't made a... Someone hasn't made a... Introduced a resolution yet, but we're not there yet. Let me just ask to the other owners, does that impact you at all if... Yeah, it does. If the land is not... Sorry? Okay, so you think... You're just against... And let me just... If you could come up for a second. Such a nice house. I'm just... Your opposition to the historical designation of the building is what? Why are you against it? So the property is in the South Andrews Avenue District, okay? And it is a designated area of development. And so eventually, you know, you don't know what could be built in that area. So you want to tear it down? So if Mr. Marcus wanted to move the house, he could move that house. You know, that's not a problem, right? And he's wanting to sell the house, so it doesn't have that much attachment to the property. Wait, hold on. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about you. You're opposed to the designation because why? I'm opposed because... But mainly because it's the value. It's a value problem for the condominium association if it's historic preservation. Okay, all right. Because they want to have the opportunity to tear it down. To tear... Yeah. Okay. Now, wait a minute. You just said something that concerns me. If we designate the house historic, if that's the pleasure of the commission and not the land, what's to prevent them from moving the house? They'll say, okay, the house is historic. We don't have a problem with that. We'll just move the house. Right. But the land... Which it seems like would afford them opportunities if they wanted to move it. I don't know if that's... Okay, so we leave that as an option. Okay. Yes. That's why I like just the building. Okay. Designate the building. I'm fine with that. So I just want to... I just want to remind everyone that historic designation of a property does not preclude demolition of a property. The owner would have to then, or whoever was in charge, would have to return to the Historic Preservation Board and get a Certificate of Appropriateness, a COA, to demolish the structure. I'm just saying that you can't just assume that once a property is designated, yes, does it afford protections that it would not have otherwise? Of course. But it still does not preclude a demolition. I'm just going to say I want everyone to take a look at this 1925 home designed by Francis Abreo, one of our most noted architects in the history of our city. And, you know, that expression, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. This is a property. This is a building that deserves to be preserved for future generations. People have to understand the history of this city. This is a physical manifestation of a very important period in our city. I bemoan the fact, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, that we've lost so many structures in the Cistrunk Corridor. That is an absolute shame, but it doesn't mean that we have to continue that history of losing our historic structures. When you see a historic structure like this, you know, you just know. You know, RULDR says you have to meet one criteria to get historic designation. This, if you read the minutes, if you read the application, if you read staff's response, staff tells us that this building meets way more than just one of the historic preservation criteria. So, again, I'm fine if my colleagues feel that we should just narrow it to the building, I'm okay. I just think that we need to do whatever we can to preserve this building, to designate the building, and also follow our process, what RULDR says. If we have issues with it, let's change it in the future. But right now, that's all just not even relevant. That's all. Okay. Do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Vice Mayor Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trinthals. Yes. And public hearing on PH2 is now closed. Does someone want to introduce a resolution? Yeah, can I introduce a resolution? So I move that the Frank Kreisen House is designated a historic landmark solely the building itself and not the land. Okay. All right. We will be, based on that, we will, you're putting forth the resolution approving and we will be modifying the resolution to remove references to historic landmark site and only leave the designation of the house as a historic landmark. Correct. Correct. Okay. Second. You don't need a second? Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, designating the property commonly known as Frank Kreisen House, located at 1313 South Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as a historic landmark in accordance with Section 47-24.11.C.7 of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida Unified Land Development Regulations, providing for conflicts and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? No. No. Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Before I place my vote, I want to ask that we look at changing this ordinance. I believe that the property owner needs to be more involved in this process. From my conversation on the February 18th, the authority that's given to Broward Trust, the other Broward entity, and history for Lauderdale, in my opinion, is an overreach. And I believe that we need to look at that to give the property owner more opportunity to be a part of the process. With that, I am voting no. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And it is now designated historic. PH3. So, Mayor, if I could just separate topic, but so, D. Wayne, I agree with Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Can we look at updating the ULDR to require all property owners assent for designation? Sure. Well, I mean, I think our code was kind of like that before, and there was – I don't recall the property on the beach that resulted in the change in the ordinance, but there was – Barbara, you were there then, the Lauderdale Beach Hotel, 20 years ago. Right. So the concern about historic preservation resulting in the change in the ordinance, getting us to the procedure that we have now. But we can look at it in order to look at how we can provide more notice and input for the owners of the property. More inclusiveness. For them to be more included in this process. Right. Because that's the disturbing part with me that someone – Because right now they just have notice. Yeah. They just have notice. Someone comes and tells me, oh, your house is now designated. Deal with it. And that's not right. Yeah, I think owners need to assent to designation going forward. Well, then you're totally eliminating the city or the historic preservation board from bringing forth an application. No, you're not. Not at all if the property owner supports it. And if they don't, you're totally precluding the city or the historic preservation board for saying these properties should be preserved for history. Well, I believe that we are intelligent enough to come up with a language that it could be balanced. This is not balanced. Well, there should be an element in there where the owner's consent is – Even if it's just a statement from the owner. So we'll work with staff. Yeah. Thank you. Here was the element. That's my request to make sure that we are moving in a balanced manner where it is a, lack of a better term, win-win for everybody. Right now, it is not. We can certainly work on that, D. Wayne, but I also would like us to look at whatever our responsibilities are as a certified local government. I'd like us to look at that on a national level and a state level. And I would also like to make sure that we're just complying with all of those requirements and responsibilities as well. And what other cities do as certified local governments. I'm tired of hearing about how we're certified and we've got to do all this stuff. So I'd happily drop that. So let's look into that too. But can we just – I'm so sorry you're tired of that. Let's keep in mind that the transfer of development rights, does this now give that property owner a value that adds to the value of their property as a result of the historic designation that it would not otherwise have if it were not designated historic? So when someone comes here to say, oh, well, my property value has now been diminished, in fact, the transfer of development rights ordinance gives them value added onto the fair market value that they can transfer to a developer who's looking to enhance their project somewhere else in the city. So that's how this works. Right. We just did that at – was that our last meeting when we gave the transfer of development rights to the building by the railroad tracks, by Progresso, for the condominium in District 1? That is correct. Whatever it's called. That is correct. That was our first granting of transfer of development rights to make sure that the owner of that historic property was given that. And we've asked for more incentives. I would like to see staff work on more incentives to make sure that it's financially doable and people understand that value. Okay. PH3, was this the one that you asked to be deferred? Okay. Does it request that PH3 be deferred? Any objection to that? Is Kyle Bente's here and Ellen Bogdanoff and Natalia – I can't pronounce the last name. It looks like Walsh. Those three people have signed up to speak. Is there an objection to it being deferred? Ellen Bogdanoff is no longer here. So can I move for deferral? Yeah. Bob, do you want to say something? Bob Dunkel, assistant city attorney. There was an initial request to continue this to the April 15th agenda because the attorney was out of the country. Four days after that, the applicant approached us and said, I'm going to be out of the country on the 15th and wants to continue it to May 6th. So that's what's in front of you. Whatever you do, we want to make sure that it's continued to a date and time certain so that we don't have to go through the expense of re-advertising and sending out notices to 300 property owners. All right. So May 6th? Property owners within 300 feet. Excuse me. So May 6th? May 6th. So there's a motion to move to defer to May 6th. May 6th. Do I hear a second? Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beats and Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentiles? Yes. So PH3 has now been deferred to May 6th. PH4, this is a public hearing, second reading, Quasi-Judicial Ordinance approving a rezoning. How come it's under, it's a second reading? All right. Quasi-Judicial Ordinance approving a rezoning from General Business District to Uptown Urban Village District, 6000 North Andrews. This is with Florida Department of Transportation and Leaseholder of the property, Cypress Creek Leaseholder, LLC. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the Commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received, and make them a part of the record. Anyone? Commissioner Herbst, do you have any additional disclosures? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No additional. I have no additional. Vice Mayor? No additional. No additional. No additional. Okay. All right. So, the only person who signed up to speak is Mr. Lockery for questions only. No one else has signed up to speak. Do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst, Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mary Trintas? Yes. And public hearing is now closed on PH4. Does anyone have any questions or comments? There being none, would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Commissioner Herbst, do you want to introduce it? Commissioner Herbst, introduce the ordinance. Please call the roll. In ordinance, Mending Section 47-1.6.B of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Unified Land Development Regulations through the revision and the official zoning map of the City of Fort Lauderdale and Schedule A revised compilation attached there to you and by reference made a part thereof. So, it's to resume from General Business District to Urban Uptown Village, Southeast District, all of Parcelain, Lightspeed, Broward, Center, Platt, according to the Platt thereof as recorded in Platt Book 177, page 32 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, located north of Northwest 60th Street, west of 595 east of North Andrews Avenue, and south of East Cypress Creek Road, all said lands being the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentonis? Yes. And PH4 is now approved. OFR 1 is an ordinance on a first reading, an ordinance amending the City of Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances to address water taxi stops on right-of-ways and other city property fronting a waterway, along with the delegation of staff authority to declare water taxi stops. Of course, no one has signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. Please call the roll. In an ordinance to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the City of Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances, Section 8-46.1, to address water taxi stops on right-of-ways and other city property fronting a waterway, along with delegation of staff authority, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, codification, and correction of scriveners. There isn't an effect to take Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? I'm sorry. I should have gave some information for a discussion. I don't know if we're too far. Wanting to see this include the, right now it says, what, the manager and the supervisor. I think it should be more like the city manager or designee of the city. Is that a conversation we can have? Have we gone too far? I'm sorry, what agenda item was this? Going backwards? We are in first meeting. Oh, F.R. 1. Oh, F.R. 1. Okay, sorry. Because right now it is outlining the supervisor or the manager to designate or declare, and I believe that we should discuss city manager or city designee. What page are you on of the ordinance? Yeah, of the cam. I'm trying to find that language, actually. On page 1 of the cam, paragraph 2, in addition to Section 8146, provides a supervisor of marine facilities with authority to designate municipality docks and water taxi stops. And then it goes on to talk about supervisors as well. Well, I thought this was all about, help me, I don't know, Dwayne or Susan, but isn't this all about the ability to allow water taxi stops in the scenarios as opposed to who's got the authority? Well, and it's both things. So it was, previously it was the supervisor of marine facilities. The suggested change is supervisor or manager. But given the fact that sometimes those titles will change from time to time, putting in city manager or designee would provide the most flexibility. Okay, that's a friendly amendment. Yep. I forget who. Yeah, I think I'll move this. Okay, so Commissioner Sorrent, you accept that amendment? I accept the amendment. Who seconded it? I think they can do it between readings and not do it as amended now. Okay. Okay. So Commissioner Beasley-Pittman said, okay, you hear that we have to have a second reading of this. So city clerk is saying they can change that for the second reading, if that's okay. Okay. And then we don't have to amend the motion. Okay. Is that okay? That's fine. As long as we don't address it in that manner. And that would be substituting city manager or designee for those two titles, supervisor or manager. Correct. So we still have that original motion and second on the floor. So it was just an introduction. Just an introduction. Yeah. And so Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Swanson? Yes. Mayor Trantelis? Which item are we voting on? OFR 1. OFR 1. Oh, we're still on that? Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. And back to you, Mayor. Okay. OFR 2. First reading of an ordinance demanding the city's unified land development regulations, section 47-24, table 1, is regarding development permits and procedures in the uptown urban village zoning districts, parking reductions and exemptions. No one has signed up to speak. Any questions? There being none. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, unified land development regulations, section 47-24, entitled Table 1, development permits and procedures, approval process for development permits in the uptown urban village zoning districts, amending Article 13, additional zoning districts, section 47-37B, entitled Uptown urban village zoning districts, applicability and general regulations, list of permitted and conditional uses. Table of dimensional requirements for the uptown urban village zoning districts, uptown urban village special regulations, and amending section 47-20.3, entitled Parking Reductions and Exemptions to Permit Parking Reductions in Uptown urban village zoning districts, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, codification and correction of Scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorenson? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hals? Yes. Commissioner Sorenson OFR 2 is now approved on first reading, OFR 3, first reading of the ordinance amending the City of Fort Lauderdale unified land development regulations regarding the annexed areas to update height, measurement, and definition requirements. So, as I understand, this is to 25 feet, correct? 25 feet. Okay. Very good. So, Eric Silva, are you here still? Eric, there you are. Did you want to speak on this? Just questions? Okay. Okay. Anyone else have any comments or questions? You're good with this, Commissioner Sorenson? Yes. Thank you. I know a lot has gone into this. Yeah, a lot of effort on this, so thank you, staff and neighbors. Yeah. We're coming to a good place. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So, would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. Okay. Nice. The ordinance has been introduced. Any questions? There being none, please call the roll. Give me one second. Take your time. Oh, there we go. An ordinance to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Section 47-39A2, entitled Definitions and Measurements in Section 47-39A6, entitled Dimensional Requirements of Article 15, Annexed Areas of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida Unified Land Development Regulations, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, codification, and correction of scrivener's errors, and for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And that is now approved. Moving on to OSR 1. This is an ordinance of second reading, amending the City of Fort Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the Beach Community Center Parcel from Commercial to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Designation. I know a lot of conversations have been going on in that, too. So, anyone have any questions? No one's signed up to speak. So, would someone like to introduce the ordinance? It's been introduced. Please call the roll. In an ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, adopting an amendment to the City of Fort Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation from Commercial to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, all of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Block 6, Gold Ocean Mile, according to the Platt thereof, as recorded in Platt Book 34, page 16 of the public records of Broward County, Florida. Together with that certain vacated 20-foot alley in said Block 6, as recorded in the official records books 2, 9, 0, 1, 5, page 16 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, lying east of northeast 32nd Avenue, north of northeast 33rd Street, west of northeast 33rd Avenue, and south of northeast 34th Street. All said lands being the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, containing 1.3938 acres, more or less, and authorizing the proper city officials to transmit the proposed amendments, supporting data analyses to reviewing agencies, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trantelis? Yes. And OSR 1 is approved on second reading. OSR 2, Ordinance Amending Section 26, Article 7, Valet Parking on Rights of Way in Public Parking Facilities of the Code of Ordinances to establish an administrative temporary valet permit for non-residential use and to provide an appellate process for the suspension of valet permits. No one has signed up to speak. Any questions? Yeah, Mayor Ben, this includes the more narrow, if I read it right, it includes the more narrow geographic coverage, right, that we talked about. Thanks. Or Miloš, thanks. Good evening. Miloš, Mr. Odevich, Acting Director for Cities Transportation and Mobility Department. So the only change that was made between the first and second reading was that the proposed ordinance language was modified to restrict the temporary permits on Las Olas Boulevard between Southeast 6th Avenue and Southeast 12th Avenue. So while no one spoke during the first reading, there were people who signed up, were signed up to speak, they were late. We got their comments after the meeting and we incorporated this change in response to that. Thank you, Mayor, that's been supported by the neighborhood, so thank you. Okay, very good. So would you like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. Okay, the ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In order to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, providing certain exceptions to permit temporary valet operations in the rights of way as set forth in subsection 26-226A, amending section 26-232, titled Temporary Valet Permit, and to add provisions for the issuance of temporary valet permits, amending section 26-236 to provide an appellate process for the suspension of a valet permit, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, and an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And OSR 2 is now approved on second reading. Moving on to resolutions continued. This is the R4, resolution designating Vice Mayor. Mayor, you might want to do the two walk-ons before you do the Vice Mayor. You can do the two walk-ons. Let's see. Resolution number – well, this is the walk-on regarding the fine grant. This is the – you all got a copy of this? Mm-hmm. Okay. So this is the Riverwalk North seawall replacement from Andrews Avenue to the FVC train track. Everyone have a – this is to apply for funding up to $4 million? Yeah. So we had approved this at the previous meeting, but there were some additional items that needed to be included in the resolution per fine, so we were bringing it back. Okay. All right. So would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. Resolution has been introduced. Any questions with regard to this item? There being none, please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant application with the Florida Inland Navigation District Waterway Assistance Program for grant funding of up to $4 million to preserve and enhance Riverwalk North seawall replacement renovations from Andrews Avenue to Florida East Coast Railway train tracks. Commissioner Herbst, Vice Mayor Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Bezu-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And that walk-on resolution is now approved. The second walk-on resolution, this is the resolution regarding the locally preferred alternative and the language that we talked about this afternoon. Have you all had a chance to look at it? Commissioner Sorensen, did you have a chance to look at it too? Yes. Okay. Any comments or questions? Yeah. I mean, Mayor, so I reached out to county staff about this and had them, you know, give us feedback on it between the meetings. And, you know, there's concerns. And the risk we have here is that we, you know, further risk the continued new partnership we have with the county. So they have some suggestions, but, you know, I don't know if we're amenable to considering them, but I think we really should try to find something that is still doesn't legally box us in. What were the recommendations? What were their suggestions? All right. So they would like some acknowledgement that if the city isn't successful in driving towards a tunnel, that the county may move towards a bridge. So that's, that's one. Okay. I personally can't accept that, but, you know, that's, that's true. Mayor, if we do that language, can't we still add what I asked about earlier in the day, where if we have that language, can't we say, but we don't support that? Well, we, we can't support that, but can we at least acknowledge that the county may move in that direction, but we don't support it? I mean, at least so that position is clear. We can say that the county, we recognize that the county may do it on their own without the support of the city. Okay. But we won't support, but can we add that? Is that, is that better? That's better. Yes. Yes. Without the support of the city. Yes. If you want to add that language. Yes. Okay. Where does that language get added? Thank you. So that. Section six. Section six. Section six. So how about a sentence after that first sentence says, however, the city recognizes that the county may. Well, what was the original language in the original section six? What we could say in section six is the, here it says that the city commission agrees to collaborate with the board of county commissioners on a viable tunnel alternative and report on progress. The city recognizes that the city recognizes that the county may, may on its own proceed with, with, with, with the bridge alternative, recognizing that the city does not support that. Yeah. Mayor, yes. Something like that. I'm completely good with the, the, the, some suggestion languages, section six, the city commission understands that if it cannot provide a viable tunnel alternative, I don't want to put that in there. Okay. Okay. All right. Just say that the city recognizes that. See, again, the city doesn't have to provide the viable tunnel alternative. This is supposed to be a cooperative effort. And they should be able, they should be working with us. Don't you agree? Don't you agree that they should be working with us? I agree. And they are, Mayor. They are working with us. We have that language, Mayor. Mayor, look at the language that they just gave us. My feedback from them is showing they are working with us. Mayor, look at the language. It's already there. That the city commission agrees to collaborate with the board of county commissioners on a viable tunnel alternative and report on the progress. So that's in what we would just give it. Right. But you don't have to say then, well, if the city can't come up with a solution. No, we're not. We're not. I don't want to say that. Okay. But I do want to then go right into the language that was given to us at 1021 last night. Can you read that language, Ben, where it says they may, whatever they may do. Well, not, I mean, Ben, Sorensen's got it in front of us. Yeah. So should the county decide to choose a bridge alternative? May. The city acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing of the new river as part of its locally preferred alternative. But the city does not support that. That's fine. Can we just do it? Great. Great. Okay. So in section six, we're saying, new sentence, the city acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing of the new river as part of its locally preferred alternative for Broward Commuter Rail North. But the city does not support that. Perfect. I'm good. Okay, great. Okay. Good? Yes. You got that. And what you're reading from is from the county version that we shared with you previously. But adding those words. Just those words. Just those words. Yep. With the end point of. With the end point. We do not support it. We do not support it. Okay. Thank you. Great. So a couple others. Thank you. That's, I think, a great win. Section two. So let me just go to our section two. So the city commission directs the city manager to continue collaborating with Broward County staff on the tunnel concept of periodic meetings and to provide to the extent possible a viable tunnel alternative update to the city commission and board of county commissioners before October 1st. Let me just see. So the county staff is saying, Mayor Furr's letter requested a formal proposal from a developer who has experience and can deliver the project. So what they're asking for is the city commission providing a proposal from a developer with experience. That's in section three. Experience. That's in section three. Engage with and provide project information to qualified firms. With time experience would be willing to submit a formal proposal. Yep. Okay. I'm good. That's good. I'm good. Good with that. Let's see. Their last feedback, I think, is section five. Let me just go to section five. City commission directs the city manager to evaluate grand opportunities and develop proposed financing strategies that address how tunnel construction operation and its maintenance costs may be funded. So what the county is asking is, in addition to that, to present a financial plan on how to fund the tunnel. Well, you know, I want those same requirements for the bridge. I want to see them come up with how they're going to fund the bridge. I mean, why is all this on us? All the things that they expect from us, Ben, you know, why isn't that reciprocal? For the bridge? Yeah. Well, I don't… You have to ask yourself that. Yeah. No, I do. Because I don't want them working on the bridge at all. Right. I want them just focused on the tunnel. So that's my thinking there. I don't know if we… Have our people said that they can come up with a funding program, Susan? Have they come up with a funding program, Ben, that outlines the financial strategies that address how tunnel construction operations and maintenance costs may be funded? Have we gotten there yet? Not to my knowledge, just the information that was provided in Mayor Furr's letter that talked about the contributions. And I think Section 5 really has that in there already. It does. It just says we're… What do they want, actually? Yeah. I just say add in there to Section 5, may be funded, including a proposed financial plan. So the commission directs the city manager to do that. That's fine. Yeah. If there's no deadline… Correct. Including a proposed financial plan. That's fine. Fine. Is that making sense? Yes. Okay, great. Awesome. Thank you. Let me just see you one last sec. Welcome. You're pushing it, Commissioner. Yeah, yeah. I know I'm pushing it, but I appreciate all of your… And I don't know how much longer my luck is going to run out. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. I'm getting nervous on my left. I know. I know. I can feel it. Yep, good. I'm good. That's it. Great. Those additions. Do you have that language? Do you want to recite the language that we're adding to Section 6? So would it be helpful if we brought this back at the next meeting? Yeah, because they don't need it this meeting. Right. Okay. I did want to give it this meeting, but okay. All right. Everyone's okay for the 15th? No problem? Yeah, because I think their meeting is the week after or something like that. Right. I think it's 22nd, maybe May or something like that. As long as they have the resolution. Yeah. Are they still on winter break? I don't remember. I can't remember. Spring break. Spring break. Oh, that's fair. Okay. Great. Ben, do you have what you need? Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Mayor. Okay. Thank you for all the work you've done. Yeah. Team effort. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Those are all the walk-ons. Okay. So the final thing for tonight is our fourth resolution designating Vice Mayor. Some would like to introduce the resolution. So before this is introduced, I just have some questions. I don't know if we've ever talked about this, Mayor. But I'd just like to just review what's – a couple things. What's expected of the Vice Mayor? What is that role? Because I think it's worth the conversation. And then I just have some questions for D. Wayne about some of the charter question on that too. So, Mayor, you know, you're – So my understanding of what a Vice Mayor does is to serve in the place of the Mayor should the Mayor not be available to attend events or participate in conferences or whatnot. And that's usually the role of the Vice Mayor. I mean, there may be other opinions of the Vice Mayor, but, D. Wayne, isn't that pretty much the scope of what a Vice Mayor does? That as well as preside over the meetings when you pass the gavel or when you are absent. And when the Mayor is disqualified from office, the Vice Mayor also steps in. Right. And – go ahead. Go ahead. And – go ahead. No, I'm just saying it's – isn't most of this delineated in Exhibit 1? Yes. Yeah. And, D. Wayne, just so I'm understanding, it says, should the Mayor resign from office or otherwise be unable to continue to serve as Mayor, the Vice Mayor shall serve as Mayor until the vacancy in the Office of Mayor shall be filled as provided herein. And remind me of what that means in terms of when the vacancy is filled. Well, if the Vice Mayorship – does the Vice Mayor stay as Mayor for how long? Until the next election? Do you call a special election to replace the Mayor? But there's certain timeframes. Right. It's more nuanced than that, Mayor. Exactly. I think you're right, Mayor. 18 months or something. If the next election is not until – Correct. If it's – you can call a special election if the next election is not within 18 months of the time that the vacancy is – So if it's more than 18 months, you have to call a special election. You call a special election. Correct. If it's shorter than 18 months, you just stay as Mayor – If the Vice Mayor stays as Mayor for 18 months. Stays as Mayor for 18 months or less until – Or less. Correct. Okay. Great. I just wanted to better understand that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So what's the pleasure? Well, Mike, I just have a question. John, the way we rotate, you would be the next designated Vice Mayor. My concern is, are you going to be available to serve that role? Because we've noticed that in the last couple years, you don't attend a lot of events. You don't attend some of the parades. You don't attend ribbon cuttings. You don't attend swearing-in ceremonies. A lot of things you just don't attend. I just want to make sure you're going to be available should I be unable to participate in some of these events because your availability has not been as good as will be necessary to serve in that role. How would you respond to that? So I understand this as my ability to serve as the stepping in for you at the meetings, not necessarily at ribbon cuttings and things of that nature. So I don't see anything in the charter that speaks to attending events and so forth. I see this strictly as related to representing the city if you're not here to run the meetings. Dwayne, am I missing something? There's nothing that expressly provides for the Vice Mayor to represent the city on behalf of the Mayor at other functions. So I've never seen that that's an obligation of the Vice Mayor with respect to what that role is, Mayor. All right. Well, it's been sort of traditional. I know that when I served as Vice Mayor and Jack Seiler couldn't attend, I would attend in his place. When Jim Noggle couldn't attend, I was asked to attend in that place. So it's been the tradition of the city to usually designate the Vice Mayor to attend when the Mayor cannot attend. It depends, Mayor, on – so there are lots of things that I think we all get invited to. I think every pizza shop and dental business that opens up in the city asks if somebody can attend. And if your question is, am I going to be at every one of those, the answer is no. Am I going to be at important city functions if I need to be there? Then absolutely. If it's something that the city is sponsoring, then the answer is yes. But I can tell you categorically that I'm not going to be at every ribbon cutting in the city. I don't think that's the role of Vice Mayor. So if I may provide direct clarity out of the charter with regards to the role of the Vice Mayor. So Section 3.05B says that the Vice Mayor shall preside at any meeting of the city commission from which the Mayor is absent and shall perform those functions and duties set forth in Section 4-04 hereof. And that 4-74 lists all of the functions and duties of the Mayor, including the presiding at meetings, the executing of instruments, and being recognized as the official head of the city for purposes of court proceedings and ceremonial purposes, and he shall exercise all the duties of the Mayor that are conferred on him by the city commission in pursuant to the provisions of the charter. So it's the full function. The Vice Mayor, when functioning in that role, does have the full functions of the Mayor. So that includes the ceremonial portion, right? That's what I thought. And if I might add, Mayor, and obviously this is my last day as Vice Mayor, there were many times during the last 12 months when you could not attend or you were somewhere else, and these were city events. These were not, as was just mentioned, you know, ribbon coatings for pizza shops or whatever. These were city events or these were representing the city at places where we needed to have that representation. And if you were not available, my office would get a call and say, can the Vice Mayor step in? Can the Vice Mayor do this? Can the Vice Mayor do that? And that happens, and it happens more frequently than infrequently because of your schedule. And I think that is an important. I think the ceremonial part is important to attend all of these things and not to diminish the importance of any of them because it is really a representation of the Mayor's office and also the city itself. Again, if it is a city function, then, yes, I will be in attendance at it. What section were you reading from, Duane, of the charter? So section 3.05B is what cites out. We don't have 4.04, do we? 4.04 is what I was summarizing. Right. We don't have that. It wasn't attached. No. Oh, to your – I don't know. It wasn't. Okay. All right. Well, again, I just want to make sure that we're covered should something come up. But like I said, just noticing your participation in a lot of the events that we have, like certain parades and ceremonial events, we just recognize that you just are never there, and it just becomes – I wouldn't say never there, but there are times that I am on vacation or have been out of town when those events have taken place. So I was out of town at New Year's this year. I've been to pretty much every other New Year's celebration for the last 20 years. I've been to almost every St. Patrick's Day parade since Jack Seiler started them up again. I have all the pins to show for it. So, yeah, I've missed a couple of them recently because I've been traveling. But other than that, I think I've got a long demonstrated history of my, again, almost 20 years with the city of participating in all these events. I think I've probably been to more of them than anybody else. So thank you. Okay, so what's the pleasure of the commission? I move that we vote Commissioner Herbson to the vice mayor position, moving on what has already been established, a custom of this commission. Let's continue to do what we do. We've had discussion before. Last year there was a conversation about continuing with what we do in the process. There was a debate or a conversation last year about placing Commissioner Glassman, and we voted to go with what is the custom. And I agree that we can. I'm actually glad you mentioned that because last year Commissioner Herbs walked off the dais rather than participate or vote for me as vice mayor. He left the dais and did not participate. Now, I will not do that. Feel free to. Excuse me? Feel free to. Oh, no, I'm going to vote. Trust me. I'm going to vote. I believe in those traditions in the process. I will not walk off the dais, which obviously is a message in and of itself. But I'm glad you mentioned that, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, because I do remember that. But I will sit here and participate. What I'm saying to continue my statement with this, as a commission, I really do not know what's going on on this dais. But I will say it's disturbing, and it is disappointing. Whatever this mess is, we need to change it, because we're representing a city, not individuals, not what I'm going to use, what I'm hearing all over the city, the Holy Trinity. We need to fix this mess, and we need to fix it tonight. We need to stay with what's well-established commission custom. And also, Susan, I'm asking that this conversation be documented word for word, verbatim, the intent of this conversation, because there's definitely something going on with the tradition and the method and way this commission is operating. And I want it in the minutes, because this doesn't make any sense. Okay. So there has been a resolution that's been introduced by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman to designate Commissioner Herbst as the vice mayor for the next year. No one signed up to speak. Please call the roll. A resolution to the city commission. Excuse me. Oh, this is a resolution. It doesn't require a second. It doesn't require a second. Gotcha. A resolution to the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, designating Commissioner John Herbst as vice mayor for a term beginning on April 1, 2025, and ending upon designation of a vice mayor at the city commission's first meeting in April 2026 and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Vice Mayor Glassman? No. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. So that's approved. Is there any further business with the commission? There being none, this meeting's concluded. My apologies. This meeting has now been reopened. Mr. Spence, do you have something you'd like to announce? I do. Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 286.0118A, I'm seeking advice on the following matters, the city of Fort Lauderdale versus Terminal Ventures and Tremel Launders versus the city of Fort Lauderdale. During the city commission regular meeting of April 15, 2025, at approximately 4.30 p.m., the Terminal Ventures matter will take about 45 minutes, the Landers matter will take about 15 minutes, present will be the mayor and the commissioners. Mr. Spence, myself, City Manager Raquel Williams, Assistant City Attorney Lynn Solomon, Assistant City Attorney Robert Obel de Schaaf, outside counsel Valerie Vicente, and outside counsel Tamitha Alvarez, including certified report reporters from Bailey at 10 court reporting. Okay. Any questions or comments? Is 4.30 okay with you, Commissioner? What date is this? The 15th. Well, he'll be filing his taxes that day, so we might have to. Yes, that's good with me. That's the city commission day. Thank you, and I apologize again. Meeting is now concluded. Thank you. Thank you.